A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning state offices and administration.
Summary
HB 1090 would change Indiana law governing when the attorney general may file an amicus curiae brief, which is a “friend of the court” brief submitted in a case where the state is not a party. Under the bill, the attorney general could file such a brief only if the governor first gives written approval. The bill also makes a conforming change to the existing statute that authorizes the state, through the attorney general, to file amicus briefs in state or federal court.
The bill applies to amicus filings in any matter pending in state or federal court and preserves the current rule that the brief must generally be filed within the same time allowed for the aligned party’s brief or petition. It also keeps the existing provision allowing a state court, for good cause, to permit a late filing and to set a deadline for an opposing reply brief. The effective date is July 1, 2026.
Impact
HB 1090 would amend IC 4-6-3-2.1 and IC 34-33.1-1-2 to add a new executive-branch approval requirement before the attorney general may file an amicus curiae brief. In practical terms, it shifts control over these filings from the attorney general alone to a shared process requiring written gubernatorial approval, affecting the state’s litigation participation and potentially the timing and frequency of amicus submissions in both state and federal courts.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears procedural and administrative rather than policy-substantive, suggesting its reception would likely turn on views about executive oversight of the attorney general’s litigation authority.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be separation of powers and control over state legal advocacy: whether the attorney general should have independent authority to file amicus briefs or whether the governor should have veto-like written approval power. Supporters may view the bill as ensuring coordination and accountability in the state’s legal positions, while opponents may see it as limiting the attorney general’s discretion and potentially politicizing or slowing the state’s participation in appellate and public-interest litigation.