Another interesting development from the 32 page summary judgement. Looks like those opposed to legal public access were trying to influence Judge Skavdahl's court. He didn't tolerate it.
BHA did things by the book via amicus brief.
“The founders of the United States sought to insulate the Judicial branch of government from public opinion so judges could apply and be influenced only by the law.”
JUDGE SCOTT SKAVDAHL
Interested parties have an avenue to participate in such legal skirmishes and several took advantage of that in the civil suit brought by Eshelman. Skavdahl’s court granted Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Wyoming Stock Growers Association and Wyoming Wool Growers Association “amicus” status, for example, allowing them to file briefs supporting their interpretations of trespass laws.
