The phenomenon of the U.S. government filing “friend of the court” briefs in the Supreme Court—without being prompted—has seen an upswing recently, sparking queries from legal professionals. Traditionally, such amicus briefs are submitted at the “merits” stage, where the Court has already agreed to hear a case. However, as SCOTUSblog reports, the federal government under the Trump Administration has increasingly opted to file these briefs during the certiorari, or review, stage.
This uptick appears to mirror the administration’s focus on pivotal legal questions, including religious freedoms and the cross-utilization of public funds for religious institutions. One prominent example is the case St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, where a Catholic preschool has protested its exclusion from Colorado’s preschool program due to compliance issues with state regulations concerning the admission of LGBTQ children.
Interestingly, one might wonder if these unsolicited amicus briefs considerably sway the Court’s decisions. The Trump administration has recorded a commendable win rate with its filings. Moreover, these briefs have not only impacted whether the Court grants a review but have also facilitated in redefining the scope of legal questions before the Court, potentially shaping jurisprudence in contentious areas.
While submitting these briefs without invitation risks diluting the significance of each filing and adds to the workload of the Solicitor General’s office, it seems the federal government considers the potential influence on the Court’s docket worth the effort. The continued submission of these briefs suggests a strategic intent to steer Supreme Court views on high-profile legal controversies, aligning with broader administration priorities.
The lasting impact of this approach remains to be seen. However, its persistence supports the notion that future administrations might adopt similar tactics in leveraging amicus briefs to influence Supreme Court deliberations actively.