Council of the District of Columbia v. Mayor Vincent C. Gray and CFO Jeffrey S. DeWitt
United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
The following parties have submitted amicus briefs in support of the D.C. Council’s position:
 Brief for Law Professors Specializing in Legislation and Statutory Interpretation
 William Eskridge, Jr., Professor of Law, Yale Law School
 Charles Tiefer, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore Law School
 This brief, submitted by experts in statutory interpretation, demonstrates that the Home Rule
Act, correctly interpreted, grants the Council the power to amend the District Charter to
provide for budget autonomy. It argues that the text of the Act is consistent with such an
interpretation and that other statutory clues favor the Council’s position. This brief also
explains that the Act’s drafting history suggests that Congress made a deliberate decision to
leave the door open to future District-initiated amendments to the budget process.
 Brief for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Law Professors
 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
 David Kamin, Assistant Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
 Kate Stith, Professor of Law, Yale Law School
 Timothy Westmoreland, Professor from Practice, Georgetown Law Center
 This brief, submitted by federal budget experts, explains the principles of federal budget and
appropriations law relevant to this case, including the Anti-Deficiency Act. It explains that,
because the President’s and Congress’s budget processes have long distinguished between
local, District funds and federal funds, the D.C. General Fund is rightly considered separate from
the federal Treasury and spending the District’s dollars does not concern the functions or
property of the United States. The brief also demonstrates that the district court erred in
concluding that the Budget Autonomy Act violates the Anti-Deficiency Act. Numerous federal
entities currently spend money without congressional appropriations, just as the District
proposes to do, and such a procedure has never been thought to violate the Anti-Deficiency
Act. Congress has previously changed the manner in which funds are appropriated without
amending the Anti-Deficiency Act, and the Budget Autonomy Act serves the Anti-Deficiency
Act’s purpose of ensuring that executive branch spending is subject to legislative control.
 Brief for Former Members of Congress and Congressional Staffers
 Ron Dellums, U.S. Representative, CA, 1971-1998; Chair, House Committee on D.C., 1979-1993
 Donald Fraser, U.S. Representative, MN, 1963-1979; Member, House Committee on D.C., 19631979
 Fortney “Pete” Stark, U.S. Representative, CA, 1973-2013; Chair, House Committee on D.C., 19931994
 Johnny Barnes, Former Chief of Staff to D.C. Delegate Walter Fauntroy
 David Julyan, Former Legislative Assistant to Rep. Pete Stark, 1973-74; Counsel to Rep. Pete
Stark, 1993-94
 Dale MacIver, Former Administrative Assistant to Rep. Donald Fraser, 1964-1972; Assistant
Counsel, House Committee on D.C., 1972-1993
 Nelson Rimensnyder, Former Director of Research, House Committee on D.C.
 This brief offers the perspective of former members of Congress and congressional staffers
who were intimately involved in the drafting and passage of the Home Rule Act. It sets forth in
detail the legislative history of the Home Rule Act and explains that the Act embodied a
compromise on the issue of budget autonomy for the District: it reserved Congress’s budgetary
authority for the time being while leaving the issue open to amendment at an appropriate time
in the future.
 Brief for Local Government Law Professors
 Sheryll D. Cashin, Professor of Law, Georgetown Law Center
 David Schleicher, Associate Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
 David A. Super, Professor of Law, Georgetown Law Center
 This brief, submitted by local government law scholars, explains the legal principles that apply
to grants of municipal home rule. It describes how, throughout the twentieth century, American
states moved away from highly constrained forms of home rule toward approaches that
granted more and more authority to localities. The Home Rule Act must be understood and
interpreted in light of that historical shift. Further, the brief asserts that a local government’s
authority is traditionally at its apex in areas such as budgeting and spending, making it
counterintuitive to interpret the Home Rule Act to completely deny the Council budgetary
authority.
 Brief for Former D.C. Attorney General Peter J. Nickles
 Peter J. Nickles, Senior Counsel, Covington & Burling (Formerly: Attorney General, District of
Columbia, January 2008-January 2011)
 This brief is submitted by a former Attorney General for the District who has a distinct
perspective on the application of laws in and to the District. This brief underscores the
dynamic nature of the District Charter and explains that it was through this document that
Congress intended to grant the District the authority to shape its own internal governance into
the future. Although the Charter’s amendment authority has certain narrow exceptions, those
exceptions should be narrowly construed in accordance with the Home Rule Act’s purpose. The
District government has a long tradition of construing limitations on the District’s authority
narrowly, and the D.C. Court of Appeals has consistently agreed; the federal courts should do
likewise in order to avoid calling this longstanding interpretive practice into question and
creating unforeseen problems in the day-to-day management of the District.
 Brief for Concerned D.C. Legal Professionals
 Mark Fleischaker, Chairman Emeritus, Arent Fox LLP
 Ron Jessamy, Partner, Law Office of Ronald C. Jessamy, PLLC
 Carolyn B. Lamm, Partner, White & Case LLP
 Daniel Solomon, Director, Naomi & Nehemiah Cohen Foundation
 Bruce V. Spiva, Founder and Principal, The Spiva Law Firm, PLLC
 Melvin White, Formerly: Lead Counsel, Clearspire LLP
 Thomas Williamson, Senior Counsel, Covington & Burling LLP
 This brief traces the history of home rule in the District and explains that the Home Rule Act
should be interpreted consistent with its purpose: to effectuate self-governance for the District.
The brief asserts that the Home Rule Act left the question of budget autonomy open to future
D.C. governments and Congresses; indeed, the Act would have been an “empty promise” had it
forever withheld this essential prerogative of self-government from the District. The brief
argues that the Budget Autonomy Act is consistent with the Home Rule Act’s purpose, in that it
grants the District responsibility for allocating local tax revenue. The brief also explains that the
Budget Autonomy Act does nothing to diminish Congress’s plenary authority over the District’s
budget; at any time, Congress can override the budgetary choices of the District government
and allocate the District’s funds as it sees fit, or even reject the Budget Autonomy Act entirely.
 Brief for DC Nonprofit Organizations
 Appleseed Center for Law and Justice is dedicated to solving public policy problems facing D.C..
 DC Vote is dedicated to securing voting representation and full equality for the D.C. residents.
 The DC Fiscal Policy Institute conducts research and public education on budget and tax issues
 The League of Women Voters of D.C. encourages informed and active participation in
government.
 This brief explains why the Local Budget Autonomy Act is a quintessential local act and how the
district court erred by failing to remand this local government dispute to the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia. The brief further asserts that the district court erred by failing to
afford any deference to the District’s legislature’s or the District’s highest court’s
interpretations of the Home Rule Act and by failing to recognize that Congress had tacitly
approved the Local Budget Autonomy Act when it decided not to veto the Local Budget
Autonomy Act during the congressional review period.
The following parties have submitted a brief in support of neither party:
 Brief for Budget Policy Experts
 Thomas M. Davis, CEO, Republican Main Street Partnership (U.S. Congressman, VA, 1995-2008)
 Alice Rivlin, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution (Formerly: Director, Office of Management and
Budget, 1975-1983, 1994-1996; Vice Chair, Federal Reserve 1996-1999)
 Anthony A. Williams, Mayor, Washington D.C., 1999-2007
 This brief argues that there is no policy reason for denying the District of Columbia budget
autonomy. To the contrary, the budget process in place prior to enactment of the Budget
Autonomy Act distorted the budget process, cost District taxpayers millions of dollars each
year, and created uncertainty regarding the provision of basic services. At a time when nearly
98% of the District’s funds are locally raised, and in an environment where the District has
consistently demonstrated fiscal responsibility—producing 17 consecutive balanced budgets—
continued restrictions on the District’s budget autonomy, subject to congressional oversight,
are unnecessary and destructive.