A federal amicus brief rule was pulled back from the Supreme Court and is back, revised.

The first Rule 29 package reached the Supreme Court on October 16, 2025. The Judicial Conference had approved it at its September 2025 session. On March 10, 2026, the rules committees asked the Court to withdraw it before the May 1 transmittal date that would have allowed a December 1, 2026 effective date.

The committees withdrew the first package and re-presented a revised one

James C. Dever III, chair of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, and Allison H. Eid, chair of the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules, sent the withdrawal request to Scott S. Harris, Clerk of the Supreme Court. Both committees unanimously supported the request. The memo apologized for the inconvenience.

The separate proposed amendment to Appellate Form 4 was not withdrawn. It stayed pending with the Court.

The Advisory Committee and Standing Committee voted in March 2026 to withdraw the Rule 29 and Rule 32 package, along with related changes to the Appendix of Length Limits. The package was not forwarded to Congress.

The Standing Committee met June 3 and 4, 2026. Its September 2026 report, Agenda E-19, recommends that the Judicial Conference approve amendments to Rules 15, 29 and 32 and to the Appendix of Length Limits. It recommends transmitting the amendments to the Supreme Court, with a recommendation that the Court adopt them and transmit them to Congress.

That remains a recommendation. Action by the Judicial Conference and the Supreme Court on this version has not been confirmed as of writing.

The withdrawal memo identified three separate problems

The March 10 memo gave three reasons for withdrawing the earlier Rule 29 package. First, the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference raised privacy concerns about proposed Rule 29(e). A public disclosure of amicus organization membership could chill members from contributing to the organization's amicus briefs.

Second, proposed Rule 29(d) contained a possible ambiguity. It was unclear what "the required disclosure" parties and counsel would have to make if they knew an amicus had failed to make a required disclosure.

Third, the Appendix of Length Limits contained an unrevised cross-reference.

The memo cited a similar episode in 2018. An ambiguity in proposed Rule 25(d) led to a withdrawal request in March 2018. The committees handled that issue through their ordinary spring meetings, and the amendments took effect the following year.

The Archivar editorial desk read the two-page withdrawal memo alongside the September report and compared them. The memo names three separate problems, including the new-member disclosure issue, the Rule 29(d) ambiguity and the length-limit cross-reference. The report shows how each was resolved and says republication for comment was not required.

The revised Rule 29 would set a 6,500-word limit and new disclosures

The revised Rule 29 package would require disclosures about relationships between an amicus and parties or nonparties. It would require disclosure of whether a party or its counsel has a majority ownership interest in, or majority control of, an amicus.

The current rule requires disclosure of whether a nonparty, other than the amicus, its members or its counsel, contributed money intended to fund preparation or submission of the brief. The revised rule would limit that disclosure requirement to contributions or pledges greater than $100.

The amendments would also add a broader disclosure about the amicus's background. That disclosure would cover the organization's identity, history, experience and interest.

At the initial merits stage, the amendments would set an express limit of 6,500 words for an amicus brief. That would replace the current wording, which refers to one half the maximum length authorized for a party's principal brief.

The revised version removes the requirement to disclose contributions from new members who joined within the previous 12 months. It also clarifies that a party's or counsel's duty to disclose information the amicus was required to disclose but did not disclose does not extend to information about nonmember contributions.

Rule 32(g) would receive conforming cross-references to amended Rule 29. The Appendix of Length Limits would likewise be conformed to the amended amicus limits. The September report says the remainder of the Rule 29 amendments is unchanged from the earlier package.

Rule 15 would end the refiling step for some agency-review petitions

Rule 15 addresses review or enforcement of an agency order. In circuits that apply the "incurably premature" doctrine, a pending motion to reconsider an agency decision can make the decision unreviewable in the court of appeals. When the agency later makes its decision final, the practitioner must file a new petition for review.

The proposed amendment would add a subdivision to Rule 15. The original petition would become effective when the agency disposes of the last reconsideration request. That would eliminate the need to refile, but only when the agency order is "otherwise reviewable."

The change would align Rule 15 with Rule 4(a)(4)(B)(i), which governs a notice of appeal filed after judgment but before the district court resolves certain post-judgment motions.

The Standing Committee approved the Advisory Committee's recommendations unanimously, with minor revisions. Those revisions corrected the placement of one sentence in the Rule 15 committee note and corrected cross-references in Rules 29 and 32(g) and the Appendix of Length Limits.

Current Rule 29 and Rule 15 remain in force

Nothing changes today. The current Rule 29 disclosure requirements and word limit remain in force until and unless a new rule takes effect. The same is true for Rule 15. In circuits applying the incurably premature doctrine, local circuit practice governs until an amendment takes effect.

For amicus work, the revised version keeps the majority ownership and majority control disclosure and the $100 contribution threshold. For organizations that file amicus briefs, the new-member contribution disclosure is out. The Rule 15 change would apply only to agency orders that are otherwise reviewable.

The federal schedule supplies a further date to watch. Under the usual schedule, rules adopted by the Supreme Court and sent to Congress by May 1 take effect the following December 1 unless Congress acts. The March 10, 2026 committee memo described that pattern for the earlier package: May 1, 2026 transmittal and December 1, 2026 effectiveness. If the revised package follows the usual schedule, December 1, 2027 would be the earliest effective date. That is an inference from the schedule, not a promise.

The withdrawal is itself a procedural point to know. A package approved by the Judicial Conference and sent to the Supreme Court can still be pulled back before the May 1 transmittal date.

Archivar, which publishes The Docket, is an operating system for law firms that answers every call 24/7 in English and Spanish, runs intake, manages matters and remembers everything the firm does. A rule approved, withdrawn and re-presented over a year belongs in the matter record as a dated note, because an amicus or agency-review deadline depends on which version is in force.

Until a new rule takes effect, the current Rule 29 and Rule 15 govern. The September 2026 proposal is a recommendation.

A package approved in September 2025 was recalled in March 2026.

The revised version keeps the new disclosures and drops the new-member one.

Today's Rules 15 and 29 did not change. The proposal did.