An amicus brief – also known as an amicus curiae or “friend of the court brief” – is a brief filed in a court case by a person or group that is not an actual party to the lawsuit. Amicus briefs are intended to bring matters to the court’s attention that the parties involved in the case may not bring. The Goldwater Institute files amicus briefs in a wide range of cases, and many have been cited in the opinions issued by the court – further extending our nationwide impact.
Aspen v. City of FlagstaffPosted on April 18, 2013 | Type: Amicus Brief
No longer able to pass the costs of regulations to individual property owners, governments like the City of Flagstaff evade paying just compensation by blocking property owners’ access to the courts. After an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the property owner in this case from enforcing his rights, Flagstaff is again trying to avoid Prop. 207 by arguing that property owners should have less time than set by statute to file a lawsuit for just compensation. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals has sided with the city and against the intent of the voters, effectively shortening the deadline to sue under Prop. 207 by three months and blocking the property owner in this case from enforcing his rights in court.
Save Our Vote v. BennettPosted on August 10, 2012 | Type: Amicus Brief
Although the language of the proposed initiative focuses almost entirely on primary elections, and the summary and title does so exclusively, in fact the proposed initiative makes profound changes to both primary and general elections. Arizona presently has what might be called a rectangular system of elections: a relatively open primary (independents may vote in Republican and Democratic primaries, and third parties may qualify to hold primary elections); and an open general election (qualified third parties and independents may appear on the ballot along with Republicans and Democrats). In both the primary and general elections, an unlimited number of candidates may appear on the ballot.
Sedona Grand LLC v. City of SedonaPosted on June 08, 2012 | Type: Amicus Brief
Just six years ago, Arizonans enacted one of the nation’s strongest protections for property rights, Proposition 207, which says the government must compensate you when its regulations diminish your property’s value. But that protection is under attack, because the government is realizing just how expensive these burdens can be when it actually has to pay for the consequences of its regulations. So it is unsurprising that since Prop 207’s inception, cities across Arizona have been doing their best to avoid paying the high price.
Department of Health & Human Services v. FloridaPosted on February 13, 2012 | Type: Amicus Brief
Fourteen states have enacted or adopted “Health Care Freedom Laws” that protect individual freedom of choice in health care plans. In these “Health Care Freedom States,” the Minimum Coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Individual Mandate”) threatens to quash a traditional exercise of state sovereignty that directly serves the structural purpose of federalism in our compound republic – the protection of individual liberty and decentralized local governance guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Such federal overreaching must be rejected if the vertical separation of powers established by our Constitution means anything at all.
Aspen 528 LLC v. FlagstaffPosted on October 19, 2011 | Type: Amicus Brief
In Arizona, a property owner's first line of defense is the Private Property Rights Protection Act ("PPRPA"), A.R.S. § 12-1134 et. seq.