State rules amended for amicus brief filings
Nate Delesline III//August 15, 2025//
New rules are in effect regarding non-parties that file amicus briefs in
the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Effective Aug. 17, under the amended rules, except when the brief is filed by the
United States of America or the Commonwealth of Virginia, an amicus brief
filed in the Supreme Court of Virginia or the Court of Appeals of Virginia must include a statement indicating if any of the following conditions apply.
Those conditions are: a party’s counsel authored all or part of a brief; whether a party or a party’s counsel contributed money intended to fund preparing or
submitting the brief; whether a person, other than the amicus curiae, its members, or its counsel, contributed money intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief, and if so, those involved must be identified.
An amicus brief is considered timely if filed no later than seven days after the principal brief or filing of the party supported. An amicus brief in support of neither party is timely if filed within seven days after the opening brief or petition. An amicus curiae may not file a reply brief except by the court’s permission.
The amicus brief changes are among several state Supreme Court rule amendments that recently took effect.
Related Articles
Legal Tech
- AI in practice: How new technology is affecting litigation practice
- Experts foresee legal malpractice risk for those who eschew AI
- Legal Decoder launches AI-powered billing analytics interface
Verdicts & Settlements
- Negligence and Tort – E-bike collision leads to neck injury, psoriasis flare
- Motor Vehicle Negligence – ‘Daydreaming’ driver hit plaintiff walking by road
- Motor Vehicle Negligence 92-year-old dies after being hit by vehicle
- Motor Vehicle Negligence – Motorcyclist suffers severe injuries in vehicle accident
- Medical Malpractice – Patient dies after alleged improper medicine admin
Opinion Digests
- Criminal – Doctor convicted of unauthorized distribution of oxycodone
- Tort – Assault and battery claims against postal employee are dismissed
- Immigration – Petitioner failed to connect fear of persecution to PSG
- Civil Procedure – District court won’t revisit three-year old decision
- Bankruptcy – Pro se debtor’s myriad motions and challenges are denied
- Criminal – Firearm possession sentence was not substantively unreasonable
- Appeals – Inmate’s untimely appeal is dismissed







