As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in Beaird v. United States on October 13, legal professionals turn their attention to the unique role of “friends of the court.” These amici curiae, appointed by the Supreme Court, provide insights into cases where significant issues are at stake, often when one party, usually a state or the federal government, has abandoned a lower court’s decision.
In the case of Beaird, in which a Texas man challenges an increase to his sentence for possessing a firearm after a prior felony conviction, the Supreme Court appointed Anthony Dick of Jones Day as the amicus. This decision comes in light of the federal government’s request to re-evaluate a ruling by the 5th Circuit. Soon after, another case, Maxwell v. Dinis, will similarly see Brian Barnes appointed to argue, showcasing the continuity in the court’s use of amici tasked with defending court decisions being potentially overlooked.
Amicus appointments have historically been infrequent and discussions around them often revolve around their appropriateness. According to a 2016 Cornell Law Review article by Katherine Shaw, the process of appointing amici is informal and largely relationship-driven. The vast majority of amicus appointments are former law clerks of justices, signaling an element of both demographic and ideological homogeneity. From 2016 to 2026, these appointments were predominantly male (79%) and largely reflective of conservative ideologies, with 83% coming from circuits with Republican-appointed justices.
There is ongoing discussion surrounding the potential benefits of a more diverse pool of amici. Shaw argues that such diversity could introduce innovative legal perspectives to the Court’s processes. Moreover, the article addresses whether the Court should continue inviting amici to argue abandoned lower court decisions, indicating the broader implications of these roles in the judicial process.
While the streamlined process currently favors former clerks, expanding this pool could better reflect the demographics of today’s legal profession. Such modifications could also help democratize opportunities within Supreme Court advocacy, providing newer legal professionals with a pathway to enhance their careers and potentially influence future court decisions.