Summary
This project involves solicitation, funding and coordinating amici curiae briefs in support of a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The following provides background on the case.
Tom Styczinski, along with other in-state and out-of-state precious metal traders and their representatives, has been engaged in a legal battle against Minnesota Statutes Chapter 80G, which regulates bullion transactions. His goal is to have the law struck down in its entirety, arguing that it violates the dormant Commerce Clause by over-regulating the free trade of precious metals bullion and coins.
Styczinski and the "Bullion Traders" filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Chapter 80G. The law imposes various requirements on bullion dealers, including registration with the Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce and a surety bond, if they conduct an aggregate of $25,000 or more in "Minnesota transactions" in a year. The definition of a "Minnesota transaction" was a key point of contention, as it was defined in a way that could apply to transactions conducted entirely outside of Minnesota's borders.
In August 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a significant victory for Styczinski, finding that Chapter 80G was unconstitutional due to its extraterritorial reach. The court determined that the law's definition of a "Minnesota transaction" violated the dormant Commerce Clause because it could subject a bullion dealer to Minnesota law without the dealer ever conducting a single transaction within the state.
Following this victory, the case was sent back to the district court to determine if the unconstitutional parts of the law could be "severed" from the rest, allowing the remainder of the statute to stand. The district court concluded that the extraterritoriality problem was solved by striking certain portions of the "Minnesota transaction" definition, and that the remaining parts of the law were complete and could be executed as intended.
The Bullion Traders, including Styczinski, appealed this decision, arguing that the district court's severance was incorrect and that the severed statute still applied extraterritorially. However, in June 2025, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the severed statute no longer regulated wholly out-of-state commerce.
Now, with this second defeat at the Eighth Circuit, Styczinski plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review. His ultimate goal remains to have Minnesota Chapter 80G struck down in its entirety.
The importance of the legal questions presented are nationwide and relate to limiting state direct regulation of out-of-state economic actors. The Eighth Circuit held that under Minnesota Chapter 80G that out-of-state dealer representative had to register in Minnesota when their dealer registered in Minnesota doing precious metals and coins business:
Requiring a dealer to register all its representatives before the dealer or its representatives conduct a “Minnesota transaction” is a permissible cost of transacting in Minnesota, not an extraterritorial regulation. See id. (“[I]n-state obligations, such as a registration fee for traders doing business in Minnesota, even when calculated considering out-of-state transactions, do not control out-of-state commerce.”).
Styczinski v. Arnold, 141 F.4th 950, 956 (C.A.8 (Minn.), 2025). Styczinski argues to the U.S. Supreme Court that Minnesota’s requirement that out-of-state dealer representatives who do no business in Minnesota must register in Minnesota is an unnecessary state regulation on an out-of-state economic actor and that such unnecessary state regulations are unconstitutional under an offensive application of the equal state sovereignty doctrine. To be sure, California successfully used the equal state sovereignty doctrine in the Pork Producers case in the U.S. Supreme Court to defend against a state regulation of in-state transactions with exterritorial effect. But, here, Styczinski asks the US Supreme Court to apply the equal state sovereignty offensively to a different set of facts—the facts that show Minnesota’s direct regulation of out-of-state dealer representatives is unnecessary when they do not do business in Minnesota. If Styczinski were to prevail, federal courts would have the authority under the offensive use of the equal state sovereignty principles to strike down as unconstitutional each state’s unnecessary direct regulation of out-of-state economic actors. That is why the case is of nationwide importance.
Overview
Reason to Invest:
When an individual or organization decides to file an amicus curiae brief in support of a Supreme Court petition, they are essentially acting as a "friend of the court." The purpose is to provide the Justices with information, perspectives, or arguments that the parties to the case may not have raised, and which could be helpful in their decision-making process.
Investing in an amicus brief in support of Tom Styczinski's petition to the Supreme Court could be a strategic and effective way for various groups to advance their interests. Here are some key reasons why individuals, organizations, and businesses might consider doing so:
1. Highlighting Broader Industry and Public Policy Implications
The Supreme Court hears only a small fraction of the cases petitioned to it each year. An amicus brief can serve as a crucial tool to demonstrate that a case, like Styczinski's, has far-reaching implications beyond the specific parties involved. For the Court to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari, it often looks for cases that address a significant legal question or resolve a conflict among lower courts.
-
For bullion and precious metals industry groups: An amicus brief can illustrate how Minnesota's law, even as "severed" by the lower courts, continues to create regulatory hurdles, drives away business, and stifles the free flow of commerce across state lines. It can provide real-world data and examples of the economic burdens and competitive disadvantages faced by dealers nationwide. This shows the Court that the issue is not just a localized dispute but a matter of national importance affecting the entire industry.
-
For legal scholars and think tanks: An amicus brief can offer a scholarly analysis of the dormant Commerce Clause, explaining why the lower court's severability analysis was flawed and how it could set a dangerous precedent for other states seeking to regulate out-of-state commerce. These briefs can provide historical context and theoretical arguments that support striking down the law in its entirety.
2. Presenting a Unique and Credible Perspective
The parties to a case are naturally focused on their own legal arguments. An amicus brief, however, can provide a more neutral, informative, and educational perspective. This can be particularly powerful when the brief comes from a respected trade association, academic institution, or group of experts.
-
For associations of coin collectors and hobbyists: These groups can provide personal accounts and data on how the Minnesota law affects individual collectors and small-time dealers. They can show how the law's broad reach criminalizes ordinary transactions and places a disproportionate burden on non-commercial actors.
-
For organizations concerned with individual liberty and property rights: Groups focused on civil liberties and the right to own precious metals can argue that the Minnesota law infringes on fundamental rights and creates an overly burdensome and intrusive regulatory regime.
3. Influencing the Court's Decision to Grant Review
Amicus briefs filed at the petition stage (cert stage) can be highly influential. Research has shown that a significant number of amicus briefs filed in support of a petition can increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will take the case. They signal to the Justices that there is a widespread interest in the case and that the legal issue is ripe for review.
4. Demonstrating a Coordinated Front
When multiple, diverse groups file amicus briefs, it creates a powerful impression of a unified and coordinated front. This can show the Court that there is broad concern across different sectors about the legal issue at hand—from businesses and trade associations to legal scholars and individual citizens. This collective advocacy can be more impactful than the arguments of a single party alone.
5. Marketing and Public Relations
For businesses and organizations, participating in a high-profile Supreme Court case through an amicus brief can be a powerful public relations tool. It demonstrates a commitment to defending free enterprise, protecting property rights, and shaping the legal landscape. It can show customers, members, and the public that the organization is at the forefront of important legal and policy debates.
In summary, investing in an amicus brief for Tom Styczinski's Supreme Court petition is a way to actively participate in the legal process and help persuade the Court to hear a case that has significant implications for the precious metals industry and the broader principles of interstate commerce.
Team
.jpg)
Gregory M. Erickson
Contact Me: (612) 979-9791
Education University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, Minnesota J.D. - 1997 Honors: cum laude Miami University, Oxford, Ohio B.A. - 1993 Honors: Cum Laude Major: Political History Science Bar Admissions Minnesota Wisconsin United States Supreme Court U.S. Court of Appeals 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Circuit U.S. District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Representative Cases Advanced Communication Design v. Follett, 615 N.W. 2d 285, 2000 Pergament v. Loring Properties, Ltd., 599 N.W.2d 146, 1999 Digital Resources LLC v. James Loestetter, et. al., 246 B.R. 357, 2000 Past Positions Rider Bennett, LLP, Partner Professional Associations Minnesota Bar Association, Member Hennepin County Bar Association, Member American Bar Association, Member Certified Legal Specialties M.S.B.A. Board Certified Real Estate Specialist
.jpg)
Elizabeth Nielsen
Contact Me: (612) 979-9791
Education University of Illinois College of Law, Illinois J.D. - 2022 Honors: magna cum laude Honors: Rickert Award for Excellence in Advocacy Honors: Paul M. Lisnek Award for Excellence and Ethics in Trial Advocacy Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois B.A. - 2014 Honors: summa cum laude Honors: Chancellor’s Scholar Major: Political Science Major: Theater Minor: French Bar Admissions Minnesota Michigan Pennsylvania U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit U.S. District Court District of Minnesota U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan
Erick G. Kaardal
Contact Me: (612)-341-1074
Education University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, Illinois J.D. - 1992 Harvard College Honors: magna cum laude Honors: U.S. Army Reserve Officer Training Corps scholarship Major: Economics Bar Admissions Minnesota Wisconsin U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Circuit U.S. District Court District of Minnesota U.S. District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court Central District of Illinois U.S. District Court Northern District of Iowa U.S. District Court District of Idaho U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan U.S. District Court Western District of Michigan U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania U.S. Court of Federal Claims U.S. Tax Court Representative Cases Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (U.S. Supreme Court victory 5-4), 2002 Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (U.S. Supreme Court victory 7-2), 2018 Honors Outstanding Contribution to the Cause of Liberty, Institute for Justice Minnesota Lawyer, Lawyer of the Year, 2018 Life Legal Defense Foundation "Defender of Life" Award Winner – 2021 Pro-Bono Activities Republican Party of Minnesota, Past Secretary/Treasurer John Adams Society, Past Chairman Minnesota Chapter of the Federalist Society, Advisory Board Member Past Positions Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, PA - since January 1, 2000 Trimble & Associates, Ltd., Associate Attorney, 1994-1999 Faegre & Benson, Associate Attorney, 1992-1994 U.S. Army Reserves, Minnesota and Illinois National Guard, Field Artillery Officer, Captain (retired)
About
Project Pitch :
"Tom Styczinski's fight isn't just about one man—it's a critical battle for the future of precious metals free trade. The Eighth Circuit's decision, allowing Minnesota's burdensome regulations to stand through a flawed constitutional argument, creates a dangerous precedent that empowers every state to pass similar laws that unnecessarily strangle out-of-state economic activity. By investing in an amicus brief for his Supreme Court petition, we can send a powerful, unified message to the Justices. This brief will highlight how Minnesota's law harms the entire industry—from dealers and investors to collectors—and demonstrate that this isn't a minor, local issue, but a national constitutional concern that demands the Supreme Court's immediate attention. You support can be the deciding factor in convincing the Court to take this case and, ultimately, to strike down such overreaching laws for good."
Organization Information:
Numismatic Organizations
Tom Styczinski
Milestones
Milestone 1– File U.S. Supreme Court petition for writ of certiorari $20,000 (already funded)
This milestone involves: preliminary review; drafting the petition; formatting, printing, and filing; reviewing the brief in opposition; draft and file a reply brief if any; and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on whether to take the case.
Milestone 2- Amici Curiae Phase - $15,000
Three Stones solicits, funds and coordinates amici curiae support. Deadline is November 25, 2025. $10,000 is for legal fees. $5,000 for administrative costs and coalition building.
Milestone 3– Win the case (TBD)
If the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case, then the following steps occur: petitioners’ brief; respondents’ brief; petitioners’ reply brief; oral argument and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. Friend-of-the-court or amici curiae briefs also play an important part in the process.