The efficacy of amicus briefs, often referred to as “friend of the court” submissions, is an ongoing debate within the legal community, particularly when it comes to their impact in Supreme Court cases. This debate was recently spotlighted in the tariffs cases, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, which were scheduled for argument on November 5. These cases have attracted significant attention due to their implications on trade and executive power.
In these cases, the amicus briefs play dual roles. Firstly, they introduce additional arguments and data that don’t make it into the primary party briefings, often due to length restrictions or a focused narrative in the main briefs. Secondly, they deliver endorsements from influential individuals or organizations whose stances might sway the justices. This strategy is particularly effective in cases involving specialized fields such as medicine or when an originalist angle needs historical context.
However, in the tariffs cases against Trump’s administration, there is an unusual coalition of typically conservative organizations filing briefs in opposition to the administration’s position. Noteworthy conservative groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Cato Institute, and the Goldwater Institute have sided with challengers against the tariffs, deviating from the norm seen in other legal challenges against Trump’s policies.
Despite the abundance of filings—a total of 44 amicus briefs with a majority opposing the tariffs—the submissions largely echoed the primary arguments of the main briefs. For instance, they reiterated the claims that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) doesn’t grant the President authority to impose tariffs via executive orders and labeled the government’s reading of the law as an overreach of delegated power.
One key point of discussion revolves around the doctrine of judicial review concerning the tariffs. The Trump administration contends that such determinations are outside the judiciary’s purview, falling strictly within political realms. However, several amicus briefs contest this, arguing that statutes like the IEEPA furnish the necessary benchmarks for judicial evaluation.
The full impact of these amicus briefs remains speculative. It’s unclear how much the conservative justices might be swayed by seeing influential conservative allies lined up against Trump’s tariffs. As this analysis by Erwin Chemerinsky in SCOTUSblog suggests, the true influence of any brief, amicus or otherwise, can be as enigmatic as it is critical in shaping the court’s decisions.