Page:Washington v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (E.D. Wash. 2023).pdf/29

 (noting courts should consider “the equities of non-parties who are deprived the right to litigate in other forums.”).

Under these circumstances, the Court declines to issue a nationwide injunction and will enter the preliminary injunction as it applies to Plaintiff States.
 * II.Amici Briefs

The Court has broad discretion to grant or refuse a prospective amicus participation. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Amicus may be either impartial individuals or interested parties. See ''Funbus Sys., Inc. v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n'', 801 F.2d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 1986). In deciding whether to grant leave to file an amicus brief, courts should consider whether the briefing “supplement[s] the efforts of counsel, and draw[s] the court’s attention to law that escaped consideration.” ''Miller-Wohl Co., Inc. v. Comm’r of Labor & Indus. Mont.'', 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982). “An amicus brief should normally be allowed when … the amicus has an interest in some other case that may be affected by the decision in the present case, or when the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide. … Otherwise, leave to file an amicus curiae brief should be denied.” ''Cmty. Ass’n for Restoration of Env’t (CARE) v. DeRuyter''