As the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket has become more selective, litigants increasingly rely on amicus curiae briefs to capture the attention of the justices and their clerks. These “friend of the court” submissions, often from interest groups, provide additional perspectives and information pertinent to cases under consideration.
The prevalence of amicus briefs has surged in recent years. For instance, during the 2014 term, 781 amicus briefs were filed, marking an over 800% increase from the 1950s. By the 2019 term, this number had risen to 911 briefs across 57 cases, with the average number of briefs per argued case nearly doubling from nine in 2010 to sixteen in 2019. This uptick reflects the growing recognition of amicus briefs as strategic tools in Supreme Court litigation.
Empirical studies underscore the influence of these briefs. Research indicates that justices are more likely to incorporate language from amicus briefs that align ideologically with their perspectives, especially when such borrowing is less likely to be noticed. This suggests that while justices may be cautious about overtly citing interest group briefs to maintain the Court’s perceived impartiality, they still draw upon the arguments presented within them.
However, the increasing volume of amicus briefs has prompted discussions about their quality and utility. Seventh Circuit Judge Michael Scudder noted in 2020 that many amicus briefs merely echo a party’s position without offering new insights, serving more as a show of support from interest groups rather than providing substantive value.
Despite these concerns, the strategic use of amicus briefs remains a key component of Supreme Court advocacy. Litigants and their allies continue to leverage these submissions to highlight the broader implications of cases, aiming to sway the Court’s decision-making process in their favor.