When the U.S. Supreme Court justices gather for their private conference, they will evaluate a petition brought forward by a Catholic preschool in Colorado, which argues against its exclusion from the state’s universal preschool program. This challenge, rooted in religious freedoms, contends that Colorado discriminates by not allowing an exemption that would mandate the preschool to admit all children, including those from LGBTQ families. Noteworthy in this scenario is the federal government’s participation through an unsolicited amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief, an occurrence that has seen an uptick, especially during the current U.S. administration led by Donald Trump.
The federal government frequently submits such briefs at the merits stage, after the Court has agreed to hear a case. However, it’s becoming increasingly common for the solicitor general’s office to file these briefs at earlier stages, without waiting for a formal invitation from the justices. As documented by analysis, since 1995, 23 unsolicited federal amicus briefs have been filed, with five of them being submitted in the last 13 months alone.
Through these uninvited briefs, the Trump administration seeks to prioritize Supreme Court review in specific areas of concern, such as religious freedom and public funding for private religious schools. These filings are not without precedent but are emphasized by the administration as necessary due to alleged errors in lower court rulings or recurring significant legal questions. For instance, in the Catholic preschool case, the solicitor general’s office emphasized the need for the justices to address what it sees as significant errors by an appellate court.
The results have been notable. In four of the five cases since early 2025 where the Trump administration filed uninvited briefs, the Supreme Court granted the petitions for review or summarily reversed lower court decisions. This pattern of filing without an invitation poses risks, including potential dilution of the significance of such briefs and contributing to an increased workload for the solicitor general’s already overstretched office.
Despite these challenges, there is a strategic element at play. In some instances, the administration’s briefs have helped to shape the specific questions the Court elects to review, thereby influencing the legal narratives and implications of the Court’s eventual decisions.
As the justices decide whether to accept the Catholic preschool’s case for review, the continuing involvement of the Trump administration through uninvited amicus briefs suggests a deliberate strategy aimed at shaping U.S. legal policy in key areas, amidst a likely continuation of this practice. Whether the Court will accept the administration’s suggestions and the preschool’s claims remains to be seen.