How Amicus Briefs Shape Supreme Court Decisions

Introduction

When a Supreme Court case captures the popular imagination, most people think of the familiar drama between the plaintiff and defendant. After all, they are the ones who bring the lawsuit – without them, there would be no case. Most of the Court’s biggest cases, however, involve not just two but dozens or even hundreds of other "parties" besides the plaintiff and defendant. Businesses, historians, civil rights lawyers, ex-governors, law professors, trade associations, and even entire states often submit briefs to the Court regardless of having nothing directly to do with the dispute at hand.

Such briefs are formally known as amicus curiae briefs (Latin for "friend of the court") and represent one of the most intriguing phenomena in modern constitutional law. Sometimes the Court receives more than a hundred amicus briefs for a single case. They all aim to influence the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution or federal statutes; in other words, convince the Justices that the Constitution or laws should be read one way rather than another. Amicus briefs play a surprisingly important role in cases where the Court’s decision risks touching on a huge range of issues.

What is an Amicus Brief?

An amicus brief is a brief submitted to the Supreme Court by a private party (or parties) not officially involved in the dispute at hand but wishing to present the Court with information that may help it rule on the case. Unlike regular briefs filed by the parties to the case, amicus briefs seek to aid the Court rather than persuade the Court to adopt one party’s position over another. Amici curiae attempt to supplement the Court’s consideration of the case with arguments, facts, and research not available to the Justices when they consider a case. For example, when the Supreme Court rules on a First Amendment issue, journalists, historians, universities, big tech companies, and advocacy groups may all submit briefs to the Court in an effort to advise it on the best possible resolution of the dispute.

Why are Amicus Briefs Important?

Cases in which the federal government is a party can have enormous implications for the business community, society at large, and even the international community. At the same time, because the opposing sides in a lawsuit see the issue in black-and-white, the Supreme Court frequently needs additional guidance in order to assess the potential impact of a particular ruling.

Therefore, when a significant dispute erupts, economists may submit briefs to the Court analyzing the potential gains and losses for various sectors of the economy; historians may explain how a given ruling would fit within the broader context of the Constitution’s drafting; medical associations may evaluate the scientific implications of a ruling in a biomedical or public health case. As a result, amicus curiae briefs often contain the most comprehensive analysis of the potential impact of a ruling on all sides of the dispute, thus serving as a valuable guide to the Justices.

What Do Supporters Say?

Supporters of amicus briefs argue that they promote judicial accountability by facilitating more thoughtful and nuanced rulings from the Court. The Supreme Court only hears around 100 cases per term, many of which involve exceptionally complicated issues of law and fact. By inviting private parties to submit briefs to the Court, the Justices can make more enlightened decisions with regard to particularly thorny issues.

This is especially so when it comes to historical questions, since organizations dedicated to studying history can offer much more detailed briefing than either party to the dispute can provide on their own. At the same time, amicus briefs serve as a tool to broaden the Court’s awareness of the practical implications of its decisions.

When it comes to issues of economics and science, businesses and scientific associations have much more to gain or lose from a particular ruling than the Court itself does – it is therefore in the Court’s interest to obtain as much information as possible about the potential effects of its decisions.

What Do Critics Say?

Critics of amicus briefs argue that they allow larger, better-organized, and more well-resourced special interest groups to exert undue influence on the judiciary. Because filing a brief with the Supreme Court can be an incredibly expensive proposition, smaller organizations may struggle to compete with bigger conglomerates or national advocacy groups that have far more funding and manpower at their disposal.

Critics also point to the fact that amicus briefs are frequently used as a tool of ideological indoctrination rather than objective research. Despite being referred to as "friends of the court," many amici are blatantly biased toward one side of a dispute.

While supporters of amicus briefs argue that they provide much-needed guidance to the Court when it comes to especially complex issues of law and fact, critics claim that such briefs often come from special interest groups willing to spend exorbitant amounts of money in order to sway public opinion or bend the judiciary to their will.

Why it Matters

Amicus curiae briefs may be one of the most important developments in the modern study of constitutional law. They represent the growing complexity of Supreme Court litigation as well as its increasing intersection with the larger society. Amicus briefs play a critical role in cases where the Court’s ruling may have far-reaching effects for the entire country.

As a result, not only the disputing parties but also entire industries, government agencies, associations, and even ordinary citizens have an interest in ensuring that the Justices rule in a particular manner. The phenomenon of amicus curiae briefs highlights a fascinating truth about the Supreme Court as an institution – namely, that its decisions are rarely made in a vacuum.

While most people think of lawsuits as a dispute between two sides, in reality, the input of organizations and individuals outside of the dispute can shape the decisions of the nation’s highest judiciary. Moreover, amicus briefs also demonstrate that not only regular courts but even the Supreme Court often rely on the expertise of others when it comes to assessing certain issues.

Constitutional law has grown exponentially in complexity in recent years, and the issues the Court now considers often involve questions pertaining to not only law but also economics, science, history, and even national security.

Students of constitutional law can therefore look forward to not only arguing before the Supreme Court but also advancing their influence through channels such as academic publishing, economic research, and even historical commentary.

Final remarks

The phenomenon of amicus briefs may not capture the popular imagination, but it certainly deserves more attention than it currently commands. Although most people who follow the news never hear about amicus curiae briefs, such documents play a critical role in Supreme Court proceedings: they offer the Justices much-needed insight into the ramifications of their decisions.

Amicus briefs deserve due credit as one of the most important developments in contemporary constitutional law.

After all, the entire purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to protect society at large rather than just individuals; the same principle governs the functioning of the judiciary. The more citizens, businesses, organizations, and governments become engaged in the decision-making process, the more responsive the system is likely to be to their needs and concerns.

Perhaps the bigger question is whose voices the Constitution should be listening to – and how much influence they ought to have, exactly.