Casey Martin Dispute: Conflicting Views of the Amicus Curiae

In a preceding article, Paul Anderson provided direct insight into the ultimate effects of the complex issues and contentious arguments raised by the Casey Martin dispute. As part of his analysis, Mr. Anderson referred to and discussed a number of the briefs submitted to the court in Casey Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc. These briefs, by virtue of their purpose as expressions of advocacy, provide unique insight into the views and arguments of the party which files the document. Therefore, in order to provide additional resources to our readers in order that you may further evaluate and understand the views of both sides in this dispute, two amicus curiae briefs, one submitted on each side of the Casey Martin dispute to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, are reprinted following this introduction. The first brief was submitted by the United States Golf Association in support of the appellant, the PGA Tour, Inc., while the second was offered by the Klippel-Trenaunay Syndrome Support Group in support the appellee, Casey Martin. The briefs are reprinted largely as submitted to the Ninth Circuit, with only minor editorial changes made by our Journal staff in order to make the briefs consistent with the conventions used on our other articles.