amicus curiae

View more Law & Legal Issues videos

For more information on amicus curiae, visit Britannica.com.

Literally “a friend of the court,” is a designation given to an individual or an organization, other than a party's counsel, who files a legal brief with the Court. Although such individuals or organizations have a political or ideological interest in the outcome of the case, the person(s) filing the brief cannot have a direct, personal stake in the dispute. In recent years, amicus briefs have been most effective in civil liberties cases, involving such issues as school desegregation, employment discrimination, and abortion.

— Timothy S. Huebner

Literally, a friend of the court, who may give evidence in court cases, acting either as a disinterested adviser or in order to represent the views of people or bodies that, although not directly involved in the particular case, may be affected by its outcome. The term is used mostly in US law.

Amicus curiae is a Latin term meaning “friend of the court.” An amicus curiae brief is a document regarding a case presented by someone who is not a direct party to the legal controversy. A friend of the court brief may be filed voluntarily, or it may be invited by the court. An amicus curiae brief is usually filed by individuals or groups with a special interest in the outcome of a case. However, no one who would benefit or be penalized directly, in a personal way, by the outcome of a case may file an amicus curiae brief.

In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), for example, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed an amicus brief that argued for the exclusion from a criminal trial of evidence seized without a search warrant. Although this issue was not even mentioned by Mapp's own attorneys, the ACLU brief influenced the Supreme Court to apply the exclusionary rule against a state government for the first time.

See also Mapp v. Ohio

Literally, friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action, may petition the court for permission to file a brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rationale consistent with its own views. Such amicus curiae briefs are commonly filed in appeals concerning matters of a broad public interest; e.g., civil rights cases. They may be filed by private persons or the government. In appeals to the U.S. courts of appeals, an amicus brief may be filed only if accompanied by written consent of all parties, or by leave of court granted on motion or at the request of the court, except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof.

An amicus curiae educates the court on points of law that are in doubt, gathers or organizes information, or raises awareness about some aspect of the case that the court might otherwise miss. The person is usually, but not necessarily, an attorney, and is usually not paid for her or his expertise. An amicus curiae must not be a party to the case, nor an attorney in the case, but must have some knowledge or perspective that makes her or his views valuable to the court.

The most common arena for amici curiae is in cases that are under appeal (are being reconsidered by the court) and where issues of public interest — such as social questions or civil liberties — are being debated. Cases that have drawn participation from amici curiae are those involving civil rights (such as 1952's Brown v. Board of Education), capital punishment, environmental protection, gender equality, infant adoption, and affirmative action. Amici curiae have also informed the court about narrower issues, such as the competency of a juror; or the correct procedure for completing a deed or will; or evidence that a case is collusive or fictitious — that is, that the parties are not being honest with the court about their reasons for being there.

The privilege that friends of the court are granted to express their views in a case is just that: amici curiae have no right to appear or to file briefs. Unless they represent the government, amici curiae must obtain leave (permission) to do so from the court, or consent of all parties in the case, before filing. No court is obligated to follow or even to consider the advice of an amicus curiae, even one it has invited.

The principle that guides the appropriate role of a friend of the court is that he or she should serve the court without also acting as "friend" to either of the parties. Rules of court and case law (past court decisions) have attempted to spell out the sometimes tricky specifics of how an amicus curiae should — and should not — participate in a case.

For example, Missouri's supreme court in 1969 distinguished the role of amicus curiae from the normal role of the attorney in assisting the court. In this case, the court requested the attorney who had formerly represented the parties in the case to help elicit testimony and cross-examine witnesses. The lawyer also made objections and argued objections against the city, which was defending the lawsuit over zoning. In seeking the payment of attorney fees for his services, the attorney argued that he had served as amicus curiae due to his acting at the court's request. The supreme court found that "in the orderly and intelligent presentation of the case, he rendered assistance to the court, the same as any attorney who contributes to the orderly presentation of a case. He was appearing, however, not as an adviser to the court but as a representative of private litigants … advancing their partisan interests … and is not entitled to have the fee for his admittedly valuable and competent professional services taxed as costs" (Kansas City v. Kindle, 446 S.W.2d 807 [Mo. 1969]).

The amicus curiae walks a fine line between providing added information and advancing the cause of one of the parties. For instance, she or he cannot raise issues that the parties themselves do not raise, since that is the task of the parties and their attorneys. If allowed by the court, amici curiae can file briefs (called briefs amicus curiae or amicus briefs), argue the case, and introduce evidence. However, they may not make most motions, file pleadings, or manage the case.

Whether participating by leave or by invitation, in an appearance or with a brief amicus curiae, a friend of the court is a resource person who has limited capacity to act.

friend of the court

See friend of the court.

• Judges, Lawyers, and Others in the Court System - amicus curiae: Latin. lit. friend of the court; counselor assisting and seeking to persuade court on case to which he or she is not a party

An amicus curiae (also spelled amicus curiæ; plural amici curiae) is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it. The information provided may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief (which is called an amicus brief when offered by an amicus curiae), a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin and literally means "friend of the court".

Contents 1 History 2 Presentation 3 Rules defining use in the United States 4 See also 5 References 6 External links

History

The amicus curiae figure originates in Roman law.^[1] Starting in the 9th century^{[citation needed]}, it was incorporated to English law, and it was later extended to most common law systems. Later, it was also introduced in international law, in particular concerning human rights. From there, it was integrated in some civil law systems (it has recently been integrated in Argentina). Today, it is used by the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of European Union.

Presentation

The role of an amicus is often confused with that of an intervener. The role of an amicus is, as stated by Salmon LJ (as Lord Salmon then was) in Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons Ltd [1968] 2 QB 229 at p. 266 F-G:

I had always understood that the role of an amicus curiae was to help the court by expounding the law impartially, or if one of the parties were unrepresented, by advancing the legal arguments on his behalf.

The situation most often noted in the press is when an advocacy group files a brief in a case before an appellate court to which it is not a litigant. Appellate cases are normally limited to the factual record and arguments coming from the lower court case under appeal; attorneys focus on the facts and arguments most favorable to their clients. Where a case may have broader implications, amicus curiae briefs are a way to introduce those concerns, so that the possibly broad legal effects of court decisions will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case.

In prominent cases, amici curiae are generally organizations with sizable legal budgets. Non-profit legal advocacy organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice or NORML frequently submit such briefs to advocate for or against a particular legal change or interpretation. If a decision could affect an entire industry, companies other than the litigants may wish to have their concerns heard. In the United States, federal courts often hear cases involving the constitutionality of state laws. Hence states themselves may file briefs as amici curiae when their laws are likely to be affected, as in the Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago when thirty-two states under the aegis of Texas (and California independently) filed such briefs.^[2]

Amici curiae that do not file briefs often present an academic perspective on the case. For example, if the law gives deference to a history of legislation of a certain topic, a historian may choose to evaluate the claim using their expertise. An economist, statistician, or sociologist may choose to do the same. Blogs, newspaper editorials, and other opinion pieces arguably have the capability to influence Supreme Court decisions as de facto amici curiae.^[3][4] They are not, however, considered as an actual amicus curiae in the sense that they do not submit materials to the Court, do not need to ask for leave, and have no guarantee that they will be read.

Rules defining use in the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has special rules for amicus curiae briefs, covered generally by Supreme Court Rule 37. The Rule states, in part, such a brief should cover "relevant matter" not dealt with by the parties which "may be of considerable help".^[5] The cover of an amicus brief must identify which party the brief is supporting or if the brief only supports affirmance or reversal. Supreme Court Rule 37.3(a). The Court, inter alia, also requires that all non-governmental Amici identify those providing a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of the brief. Supreme Court Rule 37.6. Briefs must be prepared in booklet format and 40 copies must be served with the Court.^[6]

In general, unless the amicus brief is being filed by the federal government (or one of its officers or agents) or a U.S. state, permission of the court (by means of motion for leave) or mutual consent of the parties is required. Allowing an amicus curiae to present oral argument is considered "extraordinary".^[7]

See also

• Intervener

References

1. ^ Judithanne Scourfield McLauchlan (2005). "Congressional Participation As Amicus Curiae Before the U.S. Supreme Court". LFB Scholarly Publishing. p. 266. ISBN 1-59332-088-4. http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/mclauchlan1005.htm. 
2. ^ Chicagoguncase.com
3. ^ Stanford Law Review article on ex parte blogging^{[dead link]}
4. ^ Slashdot - News for nerds, stuff that matters.
5. ^ Rule 37(1).
6. ^ United States Supreme Court Rule 33
7. ^ FRAP 29.

External links

Wikisource has the text of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article Amicus Curiae.

• Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
• Dictionary - MSN Encarta (Archived 2009-10-31)
• Definitions from Dictionary.com
• The Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)