pageok
pageok
pageok
Watch Out for Those Sources:

Yesterday Ilya blogged about Jeff Rosen's New York Times Magazine article on the Supreme Court and business, and also linked to Eric Posner's critique. Here, I wanted to note just one factual item, small by itself but illustrative of a broader problem:

[T]he progressive antagonists of big business are understandably feeling beleaguered and outgunned. "The fight before the court is generally not an even one," said David Vladeck, who once worked for the Public Citizen Litigation Group and now teaches law at Georgetown. "There's us on one side, with a brief or two, and industry on the other side, with a well-coordinated campaign of 10 or 12 briefs, with each one written by a member of the elite Supreme Court bar that address an issue in enormous depth." ...
Now Rosen and Vladeck are generally careful scholars, but I'm pretty sure that Vladeck's quantitative analysis is not accurate. I searched for Public Citizen's business law cases in the Supreme Court since 2000, and came up with five (four if you omit the case against the Department of Transportation, though that strikes me as focused on a business-related matter). Here's the tally of the amicus briefs in each:
  1. Warner-Lambert v. Kent (forthcoming 2008)
    On Public Citizen's side: 5 — AARP; National Conf. of State Legis. et al.; Public Justice, P.C.; American Ass'n for Justice; Kansas et al.;
    On business side: 6 — Chamber of Commerce; Generic Pharmaceutical Ass'n; U.S.; Washington Legal Found.; Product Liability Advisory Council; Pharmaceutical Research & Mfrs. of Am.
  2. Riegel v. Medtronic (2008)
    On Public Citizen's side: 6 — Sen. Kennedy & Rep. Waxman; AARP et al.; Consumers Union; Many States; Public Health Advocacy Inst. et al.; American Ass'n for Justice et al.
    On the business's side: 6 — Chamber of Commerce; Advanced Medical Tech. Ass'n et al.; Product Liability Advisory Council; Washington Legal Foundation; Croplife America et al.; U.S.
  3. Safeco Ins. Co. v. Burr (2007)
    On Public Citizen's side: 3 — Many States; Nat'l Consumer Law Center et al.; Many Insurance Commissioners.
    On business side: 12 — Mortgage Ins. Cos. et al.; Farmers Ins. Co. et al.; Ford Motor Co.; U.S.; Nat'l Ass'n of Mutual Ins. Cos.; Property Casualty Ins. Ass'n; American Ins. Ass'n; Financial Servs. Roundtable et al.; Freedomworks Found.; Consumer Data Industry Ass'n; Washington Legal Found.; Trans Union.
  4. Koons Buick Pontiac GMC v. Nigh (2004)
    On Public Citizen's side: 2 — Nat'l Ass'n of Consumer Advocates et al.; Commercial Law League.
    On business side: 3 — American Bankers Ass'n; Michigan Bankers Ass'n; Virginia Automobile Dealers' Ass'n.
  5. Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen (2004)
    On Public Citizen's side: 5 — American Public Health Ass'n et al.; South Cost Air Quality Management Dist.; Many States; Defenders of Wildlife et al.; Eagle Forum;
    On Department's side, which is pro-business: 0.

So, unless I'm mistaken, one case — Safeco — fits Vladeck's description, and the remainder do not. Maybe I omitted some case, and maybe I should have omitted Department of Transportation. But unless the SCT-BRIEF database in Westlaw is wildly and systematically inaccurate, the numbers I found (even if they need to be amended in some measure) just don't bear out Vladeck's characterization.

Now Vladeck might have been recalling cases from over a decade ago, and assuming that the pattern continued as before (his assertion, recall, is about what the fight is, not what it was). Or he might have felt outnumbered because of the higher quality of the pro-business briefs (a matter I didn't investigate, but he may well be right about it) and therefore the difference might have lodged in his head as being one of quantity rather than just quality. Or he might have focused more on hostile briefs than friendly briefs at the time, and thus underestimated the number of friendly briefs in retrospect. Or perhaps he remembered right, and Rosen misunderstood some important qualifiers Vladeck mentioned, and thus quoted Vladeck out of context.

I'm sure both Rosen and Vladeck were sincerely trying to get this right. Nonetheless, unless I'm missing something big, the quote that Rosen gives — and that Rosen seems to be conveying as a true statement — is mistaken. (Rosen does start by saying this is what "the progressive antagonists of big business are understandably feeling," but in context it seems clear that he's reporting their statement of the facts as actual fact, and not just as their incorrect view.)

So the bottom line: Even experienced, thoughtful, scholarly sources can get the facts pretty badly wrong. When the facts are available to you (and here this is just a matter of a few Westlaw queries), it's better to check those facts yourself.

UPDATE: Some readers suggested that I misread Vladeck as speaking about Public Citizen lawsuits specifically, and that he was instead using "us" to mean "progressive antagonists of big business" and not "Public Citizen." This is quite possible, since he's no longer officially affiliated with Public Citizen. I read "us" to cover the group with which Vladeck had long been involved, and with which he presumably still maintains personal and emotional ties, but I might well have been mistaken.

Still, the Public Citizen cases I cited strike me as a reasonable stand-in for cases involving "progressive antagonists of big business"; and they suggest that such progressives do get lots of amicus briefs in their cases against big business, contrary to Vladeck's assertion. I also saw the same pattern when I went through 2007 and 2008 cases that seem to fit the progressive-vs.-big-business mold (setting aside employment law cases, which to my knowledge tend to involve a different sort of litigation dynamic; see, e.g., Fed Ex v. Holowecki (2008), 2 briefs for the employee and 2 for the employer):

  1. Watson v. Philip Morris (2007) had 4 for business and 5 on the consumer side (counting on business's side two briefs that were ostensibly for neither party, but that focused on a procedural issue in a way that I imagine would usually benefit business).
  2. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007) had 8 for business and 2 for the consumers.
  3. Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy (2007) had 11 for business and 9 for the environmental group.
  4. Philip Morris v. Williams (2007) had 12 for business and 12 for the consumers.

So the bottom line, it seems to me, is that whether one focuses on Public Citizen's cases or includes other recent "progressive antagonists of big business" cases, one does not see the general pattern that Vladeck describes. A few cases do fit that mold, of course (Bell Atlantic and Safeco), but not the bulk of the cases I analyzed. If someone has more comprehensive data, please let me know — but so far Vladeck's assertion seems to be mistaken.

FURTHER UPDATE: California Punitive Damages (subtitled, "An Exemplary Blog," for a little bit of tort law humor) points to the now-pending Exxon Valdez punitive damages case, which generated 7 briefs for the business side and 16 briefs for the other side. (And, yes, I checked the numbers myself.)

GV:
I think you're misunderstanding the quote. When Vladeck says "us on one side," I don't think he means Public Citizen Litigation Group, but instead means the "side" of being pro-consumer (or anti-business, however you want to phrase it). Vladeck, as the quoted section notes, no longer works for Public Citizen Litigation Group, so it makes no sense to read his "us" as only include PCLG. Likewise, after he says "us on one side," he says "with a brief or two." If "us" is only mean to refer to that organization, it wouldn't make sense to say that they have a brief or two. The organization would not file more than one brief. Instead, he means their side will have only a brief or two filed. In other words, Vladeck is saying that generally in these business-case disputes, the pro-business side will have many briefs, whereas the other side will only have a few. The four cases you mention above don't speak to that generalization unless these four cases happen to be representative of the business cases generally.
3.20.2008 1:49am
pmorem (mail):
GV, do you have any numbers to back up your assertion? Or are you just rejecting Eugene out of hand?
3.20.2008 2:07am
GV:
pmorem, what did I "assert" that would require numerical back up? I simply corrected what I viewed as a misunderstanding of a quote.
3.20.2008 2:17am
JoeBlow (mail):
Given Public Citizen's record of blatantly lying to the public about, e.g., the safety of silicone breast implants, I would take anything anyone in anyway affiliated with it with a huge grain of salt. As for Rosen, he's playing the journalist, not the scholar, and journalists love to get quotes that fit the preconceived thesis of their articles.
3.20.2008 2:36am
Hoosier:
JoeBlow--Well, that's not really fair, since there are usually one or two jornalists who will do that, and, like, 10 or 12 who will play it straight. I have a cherry-picked quote to prove this, too!
3.20.2008 6:27am
Public_Defender (mail):
The figure was clearly an off-the-cuff estimate, not a precise count based on research.

And if you want to be picky, which clearly you do, Vladeck did not say that the briefing ratio was true of every case. He said, "There's us on one side, with a brief or two, and industry on the other side, with a well-coordinated campaign of 10 or 12 briefs, with each one written by a member of the elite Supreme Court bar that address an issue in enormous depth."

Using the 12-brief case as an example of being outgunned was an accurate illustration of Vladeck's point. And since you admit that the figure was correct for at least one recent case, I think your claim of carelessness is careless, and your claim that Vladeck got his "facts pretty badly wrong" is "pretty badly wrong."
3.20.2008 7:49am
Public_Defender (mail):
And for your inaccurate allegation, I hereby award you a Medical of Honor.
3.20.2008 7:56am
Ted Frank (www):
"Public Defender" tries too hard to save the quote. Vladeck said "generally" outgunned, not outgunned in one minor case. And it's not at all true that the plaintiffs' bar effort isn't coordinated: Stoneridge was accompanied by a massive lobbying campaign in the legislature and executive branches along with a dozen-plus amicus briefs on the anti-investor/pro-plaintiff side, about as many as on the pro-investor/pro-business side.

For that matter, it's hard to see how being "outgunned" hurt Public Citizen in Safeco; Safeco won the battle but lost the war, and the Court largely adopted all but the most ludicrous of the Ninth Circuit's legal holdings.

There aren't federal judges who reflexively rule in favor of business, but there are federal judges who reflexively rule against businesses; that the Supreme Court is now slightly more likely to correct the Ninth Circuit when it grievously errs hardly portends a massive shift towards business victories. Business couldn't even get more than four votes in Warner-Lambert v. Kent to reverse a tremendously dishonest Second Circuit opinion.
3.20.2008 8:18am
tarheel:

There aren't federal judges who reflexively rule in favor of business, but there are federal judges who reflexively rule against businesses

I look forward to a close statistical analysis of this little nugget of "fact." Apparently Ted and the AEI have done psychological research on every federal judge to determine what they are thinking when they hear business cases. Amazing. I can't wait to read it.

More likely, of course, every decision Ted doesn't like is due to the judge reflexively ruling against business and every decision he does like is due to the judge fairly and impartially hearing the evidence and ruling based on the law.
3.20.2008 8:51am
jvarisco (www):
The NYT magazine is a scholarly journal? Am I missing something?
3.20.2008 9:16am
dcuser (mail):
In general, I thought the Rosen piece was pretty simplistic. But here he's on to a real issue, even if he stated it badly.

The problem is that the business side of such cases can end up with 4-10 amicus briefs written by prominent Supreme Court practitioners (Olsen, Dellinger, Waxman, Mahoney, Brinkman, Lamken, Starr), whereas the consumer/environmental side will end up with one (Morrison). A lot more of the consumer-side briefs will be useless fluff.

Not surprising: No firm is going to let their lawyers do a pro-bono brief that pisses off their paying clients.
3.20.2008 9:45am
Hans Bader (mail):
The left has a staggering advantage over the right in Supreme Court amicus briefs, totally opposite of the impression left by Vladeck and Rosen.

In cases involving discrimination claims against business, leftwing groups file many times as many briefs as business groups do.

In Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993), which dramatically expanded the reach of sexual harassment law, the business groups filed something like two amicus briefs, compared with a boatload of amicus briefs filed on behalf of the the plaintiff by trial lawyers groups, "civil rights" groups, and leftwing groups.

Even the most extreme race preferences that get struck down 6-to-3 (as in the Croson case) or 7-to-2 by the Supreme Court attract many more amicus briefs defending the racial set-aside than those opposing the racial set-aside (Croson involved a racial set-aside in contracts, which the Chamber of Commerce has historically opposed).

In the recent Seattle and Louisville racial-preference cases, amicus briefs supporting the unconstitutional race preferences outnumbered those opposing them by more than 5-to-1, and the briefs supporting race preferences were filed by big-name Supreme Court lawyers, while those opposing the unconstitutional race preferences were (with perhaps one exception) not filed by big-name lawyers with a history of Supreme Court practice.
3.20.2008 10:09am
RBG (mail):
I still haven't read the Posner critique because the link to Posner's critique both in this post and IIRC in the earlier post link to the same Rosen article in the NYT as the Rosen link does. Can somebody point me in the right direction for the Posner piece? Thanks.
3.20.2008 10:37am
The Unbeliever (mail):
So what, is he proposing some kind of spending cap on one side of a lawsuit? Does he want to limit the number of briefs one side can file? Or is he just whining, bemoaning the state of the world, throwing a pity party?

I mean even assuming he is correct about the disparity (which Prof. Volokh's post seems to contradict), it should hardly be surprising that Big Business can bring Big Bucks to bear at the bar.
3.20.2008 10:46am
jwilcox1024:
3.20.2008 10:48am
BZ (mail):
Another point, as long as we're muddying the waters, is that not all "business" cases are business cases, and some others are. Even those change over time. Are immigration cases "business" cases? Some are, especially if you believe that some businesses want illegal immigrant workers. How about Official English cases? Didn't used to be business cases, but now, in the state courts especially, business is lining up. In both those areas, there are first-rate Supreme Court practitioners on both sides.

But my pet peeve is some of the comments buy into the "first-tier" argument. There are many successful practitioners who are not those listed, and who don't have big business backing. You may not like them (depending on your proclivities), but they're good. And they may be involved in some of these, but not counted.
3.20.2008 10:55am
RBG (mail):
jwilcox1024:

Thanks!
3.20.2008 11:13am
Westie:
EV,
I don't know that you're missing something, but looking at the quote again, there are two possible readings, of which you've addressed only one.
First, when Vladeck says "us," he could be referring to PCLG, where the "one or two briefs" counts theirs and an amicus. If this is the reading of the quote, I think your analysis is accurate.
Second, when Vladeck says "us," he could be referring to the business antagonists generally. If this is the reading of the quote, your analysis is not accurate.
3.20.2008 11:20am
Eugene Volokh (www):
RBG: Sorry, fixed the link, in both places.
3.20.2008 11:27am
alias:
If someone has way too much time on their hands and wants to test the accuracy of Vladeck's/Rosen's claim as applied to "business litigation" in general at the Supreme Court, spend about an hour or 2 with Westlaw and this.

The linked document is a summary of all of what the Chamber of Commerce's litigation center thinks are "business-related cases" from the Supreme Court, OT 2005. The document lists 27 cases, gives a brief summary of each, and also lists the amici who filed briefs.

If someone with way too much time on their hands wants to let us know how many of those cases involved stereotypical "little guy"/"business antagonists," and how many amicus briefs were filed on each side of those, go ahead.

Otherwise, everyone except Hans Bader (who has thankfully provided some evidence for his assertion) should spare us the lecturing on what they "know" to be true.
3.20.2008 11:51am
KevinM:
The point is not merely to check facts, which of course any careful reporter should, to the extent possible. It is to understand how people talk. In conversation, alas, we all tend to use numbers for emphasis, rather than considering what we are actually, quantitatively, conveying -- as I'm sure I've told you a hundred times. The interviewee clearly didn't literally intend to cite a statistic, and the reporter should have recognized that.
3.20.2008 12:11pm
Ralph Phelan (mail):
"Public interest" group claims to be poor underfunded underdog. Business as usual.

NYT accepts claims from "public interest group" as being true without checking. Business as usual.

"Public interest" group turns out to be lying to advance their agenda. Business as usual.

NYT doesn't care, as it's their agenda too. Business as usual....
3.20.2008 12:26pm
Ralph Phelan (mail):
In conversation, alas, we all tend to use numbers for emphasis, rather than considering what we are actually, quantitatively, conveying -- as I'm sure I've told you a hundred times. The interviewee clearly didn't literally intend to cite a statistic, and the reporter should have recognized that.

Fine we shouldn't worry about whether the brief ratio was 1/10 or 1/20. He was just making a general point about being outgunned.

Even without worrying about the details of the statistics, the claim to being systematically outgunned is still a fact claim. It's both unsurprising and unforgivable that the reporter accepted that claim without even the merest shred of skepticism. "No enemies on the left."
3.20.2008 12:36pm
taney71:
Does anyone else think that Rosen is a bit overrated?
3.20.2008 12:44pm
ruralcounsel (mail) (www):
In an ideal world, would it matter?

One good amicus brief on solid legal footing should outweigh a dozen on flimsier more speculative interpretations or applications of law, I would hope. Unless they make their decisions by weighing the two stacks of briefs!

I haven't read the Rosen article, but I do get tired of various special interest groups whining about how under resourced or outgunned they are, no matter what side of an argument they are on. Angling for the underdog role, or making excuses.

I suspect that many "progressive" orgs that are seeking to get new favorable theories of law wedged into the jurisprudence are often on rather shaky ground. Law, by its nature, tends to be slow to adapt, bound by precedent, and conservative. Doesn't mean they are outgunned, just that they are flying a lot less canvas from their masts.
3.20.2008 1:30pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Westie: Good point, blogged update discussing this, and going through some other recent cases that aren't from Public Citizen. Those cases fit the same profile I described for the Public Citizen cases, so whether one uses the Public Citizen cases as a stand-in for all "progressive antagonists of big business" or supplements that list with others, the result remains the same, as best I can see.

ruralcounsel: In an ideal world, we wouldn't have litigation (or at least we'd have very little).
3.20.2008 1:41pm
Elliot Reed (mail):
One good amicus brief on solid legal footing should outweigh a dozen on flimsier more speculative interpretations or applications of law, I would hope. Unless they make their decisions by weighing the two stacks of briefs!
No, they take the briefs and fling them down the stairs. The one that gets the farthest is the one whose position and reasoning they adopt.

I haven't read the Rosen article, but I do get tired of various special interest groups whining about how under resourced or outgunned they are, no matter what side of an argument they are on. Angling for the underdog role, or making excuses.
Whether leftwing or rightwing, isn't a public interest group going to be outgunned in pretty much every case where business interests are on the other side? Business interests' brief budgets are no doubt way, way higher than Public Citizen's.
3.20.2008 1:49pm
Ralph Phelan (mail):
Whether leftwing or rightwing, isn't a public interest group going to be outgunned in pretty much every case where business interests are on the other side?

Not at all.
For business interests lawsuits are an annoyance that they wish they didn't have to spend money on. For "public interest" groups they're a core function.
3.20.2008 2:13pm
Dick King:
The larger article is important because supreme court nominations will be an important undertone of the 2008 General Presidential Election, and people who are way too rational to litmus-test on abortion could potentially be persuaded if they came to believe that the Supreme Court not only might weaken Roe v Wade, whatever that means, but has become or will continue to become pro-business rather than fair.

One test editorial-category articles have to pass before publication is "will the article help elect liberal democrats?". Let's get over that fact.

-dk
3.20.2008 2:46pm
Free Trader:
I hate to say it, because Mr. Volokh, is usually quite careful about these things. But he screwed this one up.

First, David Vladek never said that the situation he described characterized the majority of cases. It is pretty clear that this is a vague ad hominen attack by Mr. Volokhs (Mr. Volokh says his nitpicking is "small by itself but illustrative of a broader problem." What would that problem be Mr. Volokh? That progressives fail to grasp reality? I say put up or shut up. Say what the broader problem is, or don't even mention it. Your post is petty; I would like to know that the bigger point your trying to make is not.)

Second, there is a fair implication that can be drawn from the quote. The implication is that lopsided cases like this are a problem. Any guess what, the majority of cases do not have to be lopsided for this to be a serious problem. Obviously. Mr. Volokh's reading into this of this large quantity difference for a majority was totally unnecessary.

Third, Mr. Volokh's superficial analysis fails to consider another dimension of the problem mentioned. Namely, differences in the depth of analysis. One brief by an elite member of the Supreme Court bar that goes into great depth (and thus is more persuasive, because it answers many objections that one forms in one's mind as your reading) may be worth as much 5 briefs that large differences in quality.

Fourth, Mr. Volokh is being petty. I would expect him to rise above and discuss important larger issues. He has contributed very little to the discussion in this case. Okay, he has proven that if you interpret David Vladek in bad faith (by reading into his statement something that was never said), you can make him seem wrong.

Fifth, the idea that we go from this bad faith interpretation that is "small by itself but illustrative of a broader problem" is ridiculous. I do not believe that this post is illustrative of a broader problem. I do not believe that we should conclude from this post that Mr. Volokh is unreliable and tends to interpret others in bad faith, and is more interested in ad hominen attacks on someone else than discussing substantive issues. I do not believe that about Mr. Volokh. But, if there was something that this post is illustrative of, that would be it.
3.20.2008 3:47pm
courtwatcher:
For business interests lawsuits are an annoyance that they wish they didn't have to spend money on. For "public interest" groups they're a core function.


Not in this context. We're talking about amicus briefs, which are often filed by U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as trade organizations representing particular organizations - all of whose "core functions" are to engage in advocacy. And even where they are filed by individual businesses, those businesses are choosing to weigh in since they're not parties. In addition, libertarian and conservative public interest groups such as Washington Legal Foundation and Pacific Legal Foundation are generally on the "pro-business" side of these disputes when they weigh in, which is often.

Also: in a situation where a major corporation is actually a party in a U.S. Supreme Court case, it will typically have incentives and resources to put a huge amount of funding into the case and to attract a wide range of allies to weigh in on its side. If it didn't perceive its interests that way, it would have settled the case. This is true whether or not there is a "public interest" group on the other side (keeping in mind that most cases are not aligned in that way and instead pit businesses against each other).
3.20.2008 3:52pm
Free Trader:

Westie: Good point, blogged update discussing this, and going through some other recent cases that aren't from Public Citizen. Those cases fit the same profile I described for the Public Citizen cases, so whether one uses the Public Citizen cases as a stand-in for all "progressive antagonists of big business" or supplements that list with others, the result remains the same, as best I can see.


Do you not see that this illustrates a larger problem with your post? You carelessly and reckless chose an unnecessary interpretation by limiting the analysis to suits by Public Citizen. I am not happy with your update on this issue by the way. Instead of admitting your analysis was fundamentally flawed by misinterpretation, you say that Public Citizen can be said to be representative. Its as if there wasn't a fundamental problem with the way you were interpreting David Vladek all along. (i.e. In bad faith and missing the bigger picture.)

(BTW, when I talk about "bad faith" interpretation, it sounds worse than what I mean. I mean only that you interpreted Vladek uncharitably. This is a common problem that we all exhibit from time to time in our interactions with others.)
3.20.2008 3:53pm
alias:
I am not happy with your update on this issue by the way.

There are a lot of things I'm unhappy about, but I don't expect the other anonymous commenters here to care much.
3.20.2008 4:00pm
cirby (mail):
Poor Public Citizen, having to rely on such lightweight political powers as AARP for their amicus allies. Who would stand a chance, with a lobbying group of only 38 million or so behind them?

Er...

(Maybe the problem isn't numbers or money, but being on the wrong side of an issue?)
3.20.2008 4:08pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Just to make clear, the "broader problem" mentioned in the opening paragraph is the one discussed in the closing paragraph: "Even experienced, thoughtful, scholarly sources can get the facts pretty badly wrong. When the facts are available to you (and here this is just a matter of a few Westlaw queries), it's better to check those facts yourself."

The problem is reliance on experienced, thoughtful, scholarly sources in situations where one can check the facts oneself. The solution is checking the facts oneself.
3.20.2008 5:35pm
Anon123 (mail):
I believe (though I have not checked) that the trend is much more pronounced with respect to cert petitions.
3.20.2008 6:23pm
Anthony A (mail):
If the "Public Citizen" side is having trouble finding attorneys to write good, high-quality amici briefs, perhaps it's because the cases they bring are not very good, high-quality cases?
3.20.2008 9:01pm
alias:
Anthony A, how dare you...
3.21.2008 10:28am
Hans Bader (mail):
The criticism of Professor Volokh is absurd. He bent over backwards to be fair to Public Citizen and David Vladeck in how he interpreted Vladeck's claim and what cases were representative.

In reality, in any politically-charged case, amicus briefs are heavily stacked AGAINST business, not in its favor.

Take Harris v. Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17 (1993), which cost business a lot of money by broadening the legal definition of sexual harassment and eliminating elements of a hostile-work-environment cause of action that had long been applied by most federal appeals courts.

There appears to have been only one amicus on the business side: the Equal Employment Advisory Council.

But there were many amici against business's position, including but not limited to the ACLU; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; National Conference of Women's Bar Associations; National Employment Lawyers Association; NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund; the Employment Law Center; the Women's Legal Defense Fund; and the American Psychological Association, to name just some of the groups that filed amicus briefs in favor of the plaintiff and against the business being sued.
3.21.2008 12:35pm