Should BHC advance amicus briefs and public comment?

I’m considering a session on whether and how BHC might advance amicus briefs or public comment on regulation. This is likely a US-focused session, inspired by recent public advocacy work of the AHA.  One approach might be to white-board general BHC governance issues independent of any specific case: how BHC might identify relevant cases, reach consensus on historical opinion, ally with other societies, and bring resources to draft a brief or comment.  Another approach might be to assess, tentatively, BHC expertise in historicizing issues current in corporate litigation: like two-sided markets and platforms as in Ohio v. Amex, corporate personhood as in Hobby Lobby, or standing and jurisdiction in climate change. Or, perhaps we can assess action to protect historical practice: like NARA’s retention schedule on regulatory documents, extending the UCSF IDL statement in Philip Morris, or the role of expertise in “history and traditions” as used in the Dobbs and Bruen decisions.  Please send notes of interest to Glenn Bugos at