The Division of Public Interest Advocacy participates as amicus curiae (friend of the court) in cases of public importance pending in New Jersey’s appellate courts. On behalf of the Public Advocate, our briefs in these cases articulate the public interest at stake and argue for the outcome most protective of that interest. 

To date, we have filed amicus briefs in the following cases.


  • In re Lead Paint Manufacturers
    The Public Advocate joined in a legal effort by New Jersey communities seeking to hold paint manufacturers liable for the cost of cleaning up lead paint contamination.

    In 2006, the department filed a friend-of-the court brief in the New Jersey Supreme Court to support municipalities in their suits against paint manufacturers to recover some of the costs of removing or containing lead paint in older buildings.

    Although the state Supreme Court rejected the legal theory under which the muncipalities had pressed their case, the court recognized the magnitude of the problem of lead poisoning in New Jersey. The decision leaves the door open for other kinds of legal actions against landlords who do not make their buildings safe and manufacturers who sell products containing lead.

    Read the Public Advocate's brief.
    Read the Supreme Court decision.
    Read the Public Advocate's statement on the ruling.

    top of page
  • T.H. v. Division of Developmental Disabilities
    In this case, we supported the claim of a man (“T.H.”) with Asperger Syndrome who was seeking services from the Division of Developmental Disabilities.

    T.H. lived with his parents until their deaths in 2000. At that time, his siblings sought services for him based on his developmental disability.

    The division denied him coverage. Our brief argued that he is eligible for services under the statute and that the regulation that the division relied upon to deny him help was invalid. PIA received research support from the Boggs Center in drafting this brief.

    Public Advocate Chen argued the case before the New Jersey Supreme Court on November 13, 2006. On March 1, 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision, unanimously agreeing with the Public Advocate that the regulation was invalid. 

    The decision benefits not only T.H., but all New Jersey citizens with developmental disabilities who were denied services under the invalidated regulation because they were unable to establish that they had at least three substantial functional limitations, such as speech problems or an inability to care for themselves, prior to age 22. 



    Read the Public Advocate's brief.
    Read the Supreme Court ruling.
    Read the Public Advocate's news release on the ruling.

    top of page
  • Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners' Association
    In this case before the New Jersey Supreme Court, we argued that residents in planned, privately-owned housing developments have the right under the New Jersey Constitution to express their views and to participate meaningfully in the governance of their homeowners’ associations.

    Our brief argues that these associations function like municipalities and must accord their residents the same state constitutional rights that all New Jersey residents enjoy. We await a decision.


    Read the Public Advocate's brief.

    top of page
  • United States v. Rabner
    In this case before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, we argued that the New Jersey Attorney General has the authority to enforce subpoenas seeking information from telecommunications companies about whether they turned the domestic telephone records of New Jersey consumers over to the National Security Administration without a warrant or other judicial authorization.

    The United States seeks to enjoin (prevent) the enforcement of the subpoenas. We filed two amicus briefs, arguing both that the federal court lacks jurisdiction and that there is no basis in federal law for preventing enforcement of the subpoenas.

    The case was initially filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, but was recently transferred to a federal court in California where similar cases are also pending. 


    Read the Public Advocate's brief filed 10/13/06.
    Read the Public Advocate's brief filed 9/8/06.

    top of page
  • Gallenthin Realty Development v. Borough of Paulsboro
    The Public Advocate briefed and argued this historic eminent domain case before the New Jersey Supreme Court. In a unanimous ruling, rendered June 13, 2007, the court ruled that towns cannot condemn property unless the area is deteriorated or stagnant and harmful to the surrounding community, effectively limiting the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment. 

    Read the Public Advocate's brief.
    Read the Supreme Court ruling.
    Read a summary of the case.
    Read the Public Advocate's news release on the ruling.

    top of page
  • LBK Assocs. v. Borough of Lodi
    This case, pending in the Appellate Division, concerns the use of eminent domain to take two mobile home parks that provide the last remaining unrestricted private housing for low-income people in Lodi. The trial court rejected Lodi’s attempt to declare the area blighted because the blight designation was based on a superficial and cursory inspection of the property, and the town failed to present any evidence that the area was a detriment to the community. The town is appealing the trial court’s decision.

    The Advocate’s brief urged the Appellate Court to affirm the lower court’s ruling that the area is not blighted. The Advocate also asked the court to clarify who bears the “burden of proof” when citizens challenge a town’s decision to deem their home or business part of a blighted area. 

    The Public Advocate argued that the town should have to produce the evidence to justify the blight designation, and that the designation must be supported by substantial credible evidence. Fairness dictates that the town should bear this burden of proof. It is the government that has amassed the record to support the blight designation, so the government should be the party that has to produce evidence in court.

    In addition, the Advocate’s brief argued that Lodi’s use of eminent domain was in conflict with its constitutional obligation to safeguard affordable housing. The brief concluded that when the use of eminent domain results in a net loss of such housing, the city may run afoul of the state Supreme Court’s Mount Laurel decisions, which require every municipality to create and maintain a fair opportunity for low- and moderate-income people to live there. 

    The Director of the Division of Public Interest Advocacy argued the case before the Appellate Division on Jan. 30, 2007.  A decision is pending.


    Read the Public Advocate's brief.

    top of page
  • City of Long Branch v. Anzalone; City of Long Branch v. Brower
    In these cases before the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, the Division of Public Interest Advocacy asked the court to prevent the immediate condemnation of a small neighborhood of modest seaside homes to make way for upscale condominiums.

    Our brief argues that a remand (return of the case) to the trial court is necessary to vindicate the homeowners’ right to procedural due process because the current, incomplete record contains no proof of adequate notice, no indication that the homeowners received a fair hearing, and some evidence of potential conflicts of interest that warrant additional discovery and factfinding.

    We argue also that the record evidence of blight is insufficient to sustain the municipal decision to demolish the neighborhood. The city of Long Branch responded to our brief by asking the court to reject it. We opposed the city’s motion. The court accepted our brief and the supporting materials we filed.

    The case is not yet set for argument in the Appellate Division.


    Read the Public Advocate's brief.
    Read the brief in opposition to Long Branch's motion.

    top of page