Here are all the ways the Chief has thanked Court-Appointed Amici in the last 20 years or so. I still think they’re unconstitutional, even if they’re appreciated. It seems that Roberts is quite fond of thanking Amici. No love from Rehnquist.
Update: NFIB v. Sebllius (2012) – H. Bartow Farr, III
Mr. Farr, you were invited by this Court to brief and argue in these cases in support of the decision below on severability. You have ably carried out responsibility for which we are grateful.
Florida v. HHS (2012) – Robert Long Update: Long spoke on a panel about his argument.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Clement. And thank you, General Verrilli, Mr. Kneedler, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Katsas, and in particular, of course, Mr. Long and Mr. Farr.
The Chief thanked everyone who argued in the three days of hearings 🙂
HHS v. Florida (Anti-Injunction) (2012)- Mr. Robert Long
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Mr. Long, you were invited by this Court to defend the proposition that the Anti-Injunction Act barred this litigation. You have ably carried out that responsibility, for which the Court is grateful.
Update: And in his opinion, CJ Roberts thanked amici (among other things):
Because no party supports the Elev- enth Circuit’s holding that the individual mandate can be completely severed from the remainder of the Affordable Care Act, we appointed an amicus curiae to defend that aspect of the judgment below. And because there is a reasonable argument that the Anti-Injunction Act de- prives us of jurisdiction to hear challenges to the individ- ual mandate, but no party supports that proposition, we appointed an amicus curiae to advance it.2
2 We appointed H. Bartow Farr III to brief and argue in support of the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment with respect to severability, and Robert A. Long to brief and argue the proposition that the Anti-Injunction Act bars the current challenges to the individual mandate. 565 U. S. ___ (2011). Both amici have ably discharged their assigned responsibilities.
Tapia v. United States (2011) – Stephanos Bibas
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.
Bond v. United States (2011) – Stephen R. McAlliser:
Mr. McAllister, this Court appointed you to brief and argue the case in support of the judgment below, you have ably discharged that responsibility for which we are grateful.
Setser v. United States (2011) – Evan A. Young; Upate: The Texas Lawyer has a profile on Young.
No Thank You!
Pepper v. United States (2010) – Adam G. Ciongoli
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel. Mr. Ciongoli, you have briefed and argued this case as
Kucana v. Holder (2009) – Amanda C. Leiter
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Ms. Leiter, you briefed and argued this case in support of the judgment below, at the invitation of the Court, and have ably discharged that responsibility, for which we are grateful.
Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick (2009)- Deborah Jones Merritt:
Ms. Merritt, you were appointed by this Court as an amicus to defend the judgment below, and you have ably discharged that responsibility.
Irizarry v. United States (2008) – Peter B. Rutledge
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Mr. Rutledge, you briefed and argued the case as amicus curiaein support of the judgment below upon appointment by this Court, and we thank you for undertaking and discharging that assignment.
Greenlaw v. United States (2008) – Jay T. Jorgensen:
Mr. Jorgensen, you have briefed and argued this case as an amicus curiae in support of thejudgment below on appointment by the Court. We thank you for undertaking and discharging that assignment.
Clay v. United States (2002) – David W. De Bruin
No love from CJ Rehnquist!
Great-West Life & Annuity v. Kundson (2001) – Richard G. Taranto:
Again, no thanks from CJ Rehnquist
Ornelas v. United States (1996) – Peter Isakoff
No thanks from the Chief!
Gutierrez De Martinez v. Lamagno (1995) – Michael E. Kellogg
West only goes back to about 1990. I’ll dig deeper another time.