That's true, but they did need special permission to leep the identities of the moderators anonymous:

This, Reddit’s spokesperson notes, is “a significant departure from normal Supreme Court procedure.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit defending online privacy, championed the court’s decision to allow moderators to contribute comments anonymously.

“We’re happy the Supreme Court recognized the First Amendment rights of Reddit moderators to speak to the court about their concerns,” EFF’s senior staff attorney, Sophia Cope, told Ars. “It is quite understandable why those individuals may be hesitant to identify themselves should they be subject to liability in the future for moderating others’ speech on Reddit.”

I'd note both the EFF and Reddit said this was unusual.

Perhaps, but then again maybe it's just really good PR.

I think this is a catastrophy of American exceptionalism, really American narcissism. The idea that the provenance of ideas doesn't matter is insane to anyone who voted for Mr. Splashypants. How can you expect amicus briefs to the highest court in the land to become anything besides spam if they don't have attribution?

Reddit mods are pseudonymous. You can't easily become one - especially for a major community - and they have reputations attached to them.

I think there's a difference between anonymous briefs and including information from anonymous people in yours.