United States: Supreme Court Amicus Curiae Review: ‘Friends Of The Court' Roared Back In 2017–18 Term

Last Updated: October 21 2018
Article by Anthony J. Franze and R. Reeves Anderson

Four things dominated the Supreme Court's 2017– 18 term: wedding cakes, immigration, unions—and amicus curiae. After a relatively quiet 2016–17 term, friends of the court roared back last term, with amici participating in every argued case and filing more briefs than ever.

In our eighth year analyzing the high court's amicus curiae docket for the National Law Journal, we found that amici—organizations and individuals spanning the ideological spectrum—continued to garner attention, with the justices regularly citing amicus briefs in their opinions and even jousting over them during oral argument.


In 2017–18, amici filed briefs in every argued case, surpassing the past seven terms where participation rates ranged from 92 to 98 percent. Amici also filed more briefs. In the previous seven terms, amici filed on average between nine and 14 briefs per case, with the 2016–17 term marking a near seven-year low. In last year's assessment, we attributed the drop to the then eight-member Court hearing fewer cases on hot-button issues until a tie-breaking ninth member was confirmed. With the return of The Nine, the 2017–18 term saw a resurgence of marquee cases and a corresponding uptick in amicus submissions. Amici filed 890 briefs in 63 argued cases, averaging just over 14 briefs per case, a new record. These totals exclude an additional 98 amicus briefs filed in three merits cases that were fully briefed but dismissed before argument.

The return of mega cases also upped the number of amicus briefs filed in a single proceeding. "Cases with thirty or more amicus briefs are no longer particularly rare, and the highest-profile cases see amicus filings reaching the triple digits." Aaron- Andrew P. Bruhl & Adam Feldman, Separating the Amicus Wheat from Chaff, 106 Georgetown L. J. Online 135, 135 (2017). In 2016–17, with fewer blockbuster cases on the docket, the highpoint was 35 briefs in a single case, a seven-term low. But in 2017– 18, amici filed 95 briefs in Masterpiece Cakeshop, involving a baker's refusal to create a wedding cake for a samesex marriage. (One creative amicus brief included color photographs of elaborate wedding cakes to illustrate their artistry.) And amici filed 73 briefs in Trump v. Hawaii, involving the president's immigration travel ban.

While it is no surprise that today's "big" cases attract more briefs, it was not always so. Brown v. Board of Education had six amicus briefs, and Roe v. Wade generated only 23.

Last term, the justices occasionally noted the large number of amicus filings. In her dissenting opinion in Trump v. Hawaii, Justice Sotomayor highlighted the "scores of amici who have filed briefs" that described the "deleterious effects" of the travel ban. Justice Alito turned the tables in Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, observing in his majority opinion that "neither respondents nor any of the 39 amicus briefs supporting them" provided an answer to an important issue regarding mandatory collection of public-employee union fees.


One measure of whether an amicus brief makes a difference is if a justice cites it in an opinion. In the 2017–18 term, justices cited amicus briefs in 23 majority, 21 dissenting, and five concurring opinions. That is roughly the same number of majority opinions from the previous term, but more than double the citations to amici in dissents. The latter increase is attributable, in part, to the resurgence of 5-4 decisions, which made up a quarter of the cases in 2017–18 compared to 10 percent the year before when the Court had only eight members for most of the term.

Overall, the justices cited amicus briefs in 59 percent of the cases with signed majority opinions. That was up from 50 percent the previous term, and on the high end of the past seven terms where justices cited friend-of-the-court briefs in 46 to 63 percent of cases.

In 2017–18, the justices cited 11.9 percent (90/756) of the nongovernment briefs, called "green briefs" for the color of their covers. That is a high for the prior seven terms, where the justices cited between 5 and 11 percent of nongovernment briefs.

As for government amicus briefs, the justices cited 60 percent (12/20) of amicus briefs submitted by the Office of the Solicitor General in 2017–18, roughly in the middle of the 44 to 81 percent range over the prior seven terms.


Some scholars warn of "a growing threat of amicus overload, especially in the most salient cases, and the problem will only become more acute if current filing trends continue." Bruhl & Feldman, supra, at 135. So how do the justices and their clerks pluck the useful briefs from the massive pile? Some have proposed creative screening methods like "the use of plagiarism detection software as a tool to help identify the amicus briefs with the most useful and novel content." Id. at 136. Others have advocated for wholesale amicus reform, including a senator who questioned the propriety of modern amicus practice during a much-less-newsworthy portion of Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings. Without any formal screening mechanisms, studies and common sense suggest that justices and their clerks often use proxies to identify helpful submissions. Two such proxies are subject matter and the identity of the filer.

On subject matter, in 2017–18 the justices continued to rely on briefs that provided "legislative facts"— "generalized facts about the world that are not limited to any specific case." Allison Orr Larsen, The Trouble With Amicus Facts, 100 Va. L. Rev. 1757, 1759 (2014). Last term, the justices cited amicus briefs for statistics, such as on how many people inform the Postal Service after they move, how many registered voters fail to vote (Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute), and how many people had Internet access in 1992 versus today (South Dakota v. Wayfair). As in prior terms, the justices also found useful briefs that provided surveys of laws, citing green briefs that compiled laws on statutes of limitations (Artis v. District of Columbia), "Indian-land bills" (Patchak v. Zinke), and tax laws relating to Internet sales (Wayfair).

The justices often turned to industry groups and companies for legislative facts. The justices' opinions included citations to briefs by the Institute of International Bankers on how a specific currency-exchange system works (Jesner v. Arab Bank), the American Gaming Association on the history of gaming and sports gambling (Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n), the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association on the background of a particular securities law (China Agritech v. Resh), and cited briefs by companies like eBay and Etsy on the real-world complexities caused by inconsistent tax laws (Wayfair).

Studies also suggest that advocates and amici known for quality briefs get more attention. Allison Orr Larsen & Neal Devins, The Amicus Machine, 102 Va. L. Rev. 1901, 1922- 23 (2016); see also Adam Feldman, A Lot at Stake: Amicus Filers 2017/2018, Empirical SCOTUS, Jan. 16, 2018. During oral argument in the 2017– 18 term, Justice Breyer referred to a friend-of-the-court brief by the advocate's name, not the amicus curiae. See Tony Mauro, SCOTUS Gives Prized Nod to Arnold & Porter's Lisa Blatt at Travel Ban Argument, National L. J., Apr. 26, 2018. Justice Breyer later highlighted that brief in his dissenting opinion. Overall, about half of the green briefs cited by the justices were authored by firms that have established Supreme Court practices. And in 2017–18, the justices again turned to organizations known for quality submissions, citing briefs by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the NAACP in multiple cases.

Briefs by academics also get "closer attention—at least initially." Kelly J. Lynch, Best Friends? Supreme Court Law Clerks on Effective Amicus Curiae Briefs, 20 J.L. & Pol. 33, 52 (2004). Despite some criticism of "scholar briefs," see Richard H. Fallon Jr., Scholars' Briefs and the Vocation of a Law Professor, 4 J. Legal Analysis 223 (2012), the justices in 2017– 18 continued to rely heavily on green briefs submitted by professors. During oral argument in Hughes v. U.S., four justices discussed UCLA Professor Richard Re's amicus brief that offered guidance on the proper interpretation of fragmented high court decisions. Tony Mauro & Marcia Coyle, Will Re's Amicus Brief Rule?, Supreme Court Brief, Mar. 28, 2018. Justice Kagan devoted 19 pages of her 25-page majority opinion in Ortiz v. U.S. to a jurisdictional question raised by UVA Professor Aditya Bamzai. Though rejecting Bamzai's position, Justice Kagan lauded the professor for provoking a serious argument "deserving of sustained consideration." Marcia Coyle, Kagan Gives UVA Prof Shoutout for Provoking 'Good and Hard Thinking,' Nat. L. J., June 22, 2018.

Finally, the justices repeatedly cited briefs by government entities. Given the Office of the Solicitor General's stellar reputation and institutional relationship with the Court, the justices frequently cited OSG briefs, even if only to express disagreement with the government's position (Digital Realty Trust v. Somers; Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund; Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren; WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.). The 2017–18 term also found the justices citing to State amicus briefs for a range of topics, including State budgetary issues (Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis; Janus), and how a decision would impact future legal proceedings or crime fighting (Currier v. Virginia; Carpenter v. U.S.).


Over the prior seven terms, the justices varied substantially in how often they cited amicus briefs in their opinions. The 2017–18 term was no different, although some patterns are beginning to emerge.

Justice Ginsburg cited amicus briefs in half of her opinions in 2017–18, maintaining her status as a top amicus citer over the prior seven terms. Justice Thomas, with the lowest seven-term average, retained his position at the other end of the spectrum, citing amicus briefs in only 7 percent of his opinions in 2017–18. Justice Thomas's practice is also noteworthy because he cited only OSG amicus briefs, just as he did the term before. Justice Alito cited amicus briefs in only 27 percent of his opinions, in line with his seven-year average and among the lowest percentages of all the justices. In his first full term on the Court, Justice Gorsuch cited amicus brief in 29 percent of his opinions. With the retirement of Justice Kennedy, the Court lost one of its most prolific amicus citers.

Despite some criticisms and calls for reform, amicus practice at the Supreme Court continues its breakneck pace to file more briefs in more cases. And it appears that the justices continue to find amicus participation a benefit to the process, not a burden (though maybe their law clerks disagree). The current 2018–19 term—with a new justice and blockbuster cases in store— seems poised for another banner year for friends of the court.

Originally published by THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions