Judge Acknowledges Amicus Curiae from Circle
In the ongoing SEC v. Binance litigation, Judge Amy Jackson has accepted an amicus curiae brief from Circle Internet Financial. This decision comes as the case enters a critical stage and the judge rejects motions to dismiss from Binance’s CEO CZ and the company itself. Circle’s brief will no longer support either side in the case.
Circle’s initial submission argued that stablecoins should not be classified as securities and that the SEC lacks jurisdiction over their payment. However, it is important to consider both legal and practical factors that justify the SEC’s jurisdiction in regulating stablecoin payments.
Court Precedent for Submitting an Amicus Curiae Brief
According to a minute order, future requests to file an amicus curiae brief must be accompanied by no more than two motions to appear pro hac vice. The brief should also explain why it would be helpful or necessary, especially if it presents a position already taken in prior amicus briefs filed in this case. The court emphasizes that participation in oral arguments requires approval.
Motion for Leave
Judge Jackson has granted permission for attorneys Jeremy Gray, Mark W. Rasmussen, Heath P. Tarbert, Eric Tung, and Daniel Kaleba to represent their clients pro hac vice. However, these attorneys or a representative from their firms must complete CM/ECF training, have login credentials, and provide consent in order to file documents electronically.
Hot Take: Judge Accepts Circle’s Amicus Curiae Brief in SEC v. Binance Case
Today marks a significant moment in the SEC v. Binance litigation as Judge Amy Jackson acknowledges Circle Internet Financial’s amicus curiae brief. This development comes alongside the judge’s rejection of motions to dismiss from Binance’s CEO and the company itself. Circle’s brief argues against classifying stablecoins as securities, but it is crucial to consider the SEC’s jurisdiction over stablecoin payments. Moving forward, the court establishes guidelines for submitting amicus curiae briefs and emphasizes the need for approval to participate in oral arguments. This case continues to shape the regulatory landscape for cryptocurrencies and stablecoins.
By
By
By
By