August 16, 2007
(Updated – 10/23/08)
Memorandum To Counsel
From: Clerk of the Court
SUBJECT: Revised Supreme Court Rules
The Supreme Court recently revised its Rules of the Court, effective October 1, 2007. The revised Rules contain changes that are important to you and parties filing documents in this Court. This memorandum is designed to outline some of the most important changes.
Word Count And Font
Revised Rule 33.1 requires word, rather than page, limits. The typeface must be in a Century family (e.g., Century Expanded, New Century Schoolbook, or Century Schoolbook) 12-point. The typeface of footnotes must be in 10-point type. Rule 33.1(h) provides that documents prepared under Rule 33.1 must be accompanied by a certificate signed by the attorney or preparer of the document stating that the brief complies with the word limitations. The certificate should not be bound with the brief. Preparers may rely on the word count of the word-processing system used to prepare the document. Footnotes must be included in the word count. The certificate must state the number of words in a document.
The count certification may be worded as follows:
"As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains _____ words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).
""I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
"Executed on _____________, 20___.
Table of Contents
Revised Rule 14.1(c) provides that the table of contents shall include the items contained in the appendix.
Revised Rules 25.2 and 25.3 shorten the time for filing bottom-side briefs and reply briefs on the merits from 35 days to 30 days. Due dates for merits briefs, including amicus curiae briefs at the merits stage, in cases that have already been granted shall comply with the 2005 version of the Rules. Due dates for merits briefs in cases granted on or after October 1, 2007, shall comply with the 2007 version of the Rules. It is anticipated that any order entered between the date of this memorandum and October 1, 2007, that grants certiorari or notes or postpones probable jurisdiction will include a briefing schedule for the parties and amici curiae.
Revised Rule 25.8 provides that an electronic version of every brief on the merits shall be transmitted to the Clerk of the Court and to opposing counsel of record at the time the brief is filed in accordance with guidelines established by the Clerk. Guidelines for the electronic submission of briefs on the merits are enclosed. The electronic transmission requirement is in addition to the requirement that booklet-format briefs be timely filed.
Counsel of record in cases before the Court for oral argument will be provided additional information concerning submitting briefs in electronic format.
Amicus Curiae Briefs
Revised Rule 37.3(a) provides that an electronic version of every amicus curiae brief in a case before the Court for oral argument shall be transmitted to the Clerk of the Court and to counsel for the parties at the time the brief is filed in accordance with the enclosed guidelines. The electronic transmission requirement is in addition to the requirement that booklet-format briefs be timely filed.
Revised Rule 37 modifies the requirement that certain amicus curiae briefs must include a disclosure statement in the first footnote on the first page of text.
The Rule continues to require most amicus curiae to disclose whether the parties consented to the filing of the amicus brief. If the parties have consented, that portion of footnote 1 may be worded as follows:
"The parties have consented to the filing of this brief."
The Rule now also requires amici curiae to notify parties of the intent to file an amicus curiae at the petition stage, and to confirm that they have given the parties such notification. That portion of footnote 1 may be worded as follows:
"Counsel of record for all parties received notice at least 10 days prior to the due date of the amicus curiae's intention to file this brief."
Rule 37.6 also amends the requirement that most amicus curiae disclose who authored the amicus brief and who made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation of that brief. Assuming there is nothing unusual that must be disclosed, that portion of footnote 1 may be worded as follows:
"No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No person other than amicus curiae, its members, or its counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission."
I encourage you to become familiar with the revised Rules. If you have questions, please contact Chief Deputy Clerk, Christopher Vasil.
William K. Suter
Clerk of the Court Enclosure