Amicus Curiae Briefs in AP US Government

The Justice Department's brief in Brown v. Board

In December 1952, the federal government wasn't a party in Brown v. Board of Education. The case was brought by Black families and argued by NAACP lawyers against local school boards. The Truman administration's Justice Department filed an amicus brief anyway, siding with the families.

The brief emphasized an additional angle: the international consequences of school segregation during the Cold War. It argued that segregation damaged the United States abroad because it handed the Soviet Union propaganda about American racism. The Court ruled unanimously against segregation in 1954.

That's the whole idea in one case. An outsider with a stake in the outcome puts its own angle in front of the justices without being a party to the case.

Why groups file briefs instead of lobbying justices

The Truman administration couldn't vote justices out of office in 1952, and neither could anyone else. That's why amicus briefs matter in Topic 2.10, The Court in Action, in Unit 2: Interactions Among Branches of Government, which asks how life tenure shapes arguments over how much power the Supreme Court should have.

Justices serve for life and never run for reelection, so the usual pressure tools don't work. A group can't threaten a justice's next campaign or rally voters against them. Life tenure is what lets the Court hand down controversial or unpopular rulings without worrying about the current political climate.

Amicus briefs are the formal, accepted way outside actors can still try to influence the Court. When a ruling feels out of step with public opinion, critics argue the Court holds too much power. Supporters can point out that the justices did hear from a wide range of groups through briefs before deciding.

Amicus briefs as an interest group tactic in Topic 5.6

The term shows up again in Topic 5.6, Interest Groups Influencing Policymaking. There it sits on a list of interest group tactics. That list includes informing voters and officials, lobbying, drafting legislation, and mobilizing members.

The resource angle from 5.6 applies here too. A well-funded group can pay experienced appellate lawyers and commission research to support its brief. A small group may not afford either. So filing briefs is one more place where unequal resources can translate into unequal influence over policy.

This gives the term a cross-unit link. It connects the Court's insulation from elections in Unit 2 to the interest group activity covered in Unit 5.

Writing about an amicus brief in a Concept Application scenario

The Concept Application free-response question gives a realistic scenario and asks you to explain the effects of an institution or process. Suppose a scenario has an advocacy group losing in Congress and then turning to a pending Supreme Court case. A strong answer names the amicus brief as the tool and explains why the group used it. Courts can't be lobbied through elections, so a brief is how the group gets its research and arguments in front of the justices.

In the Argument Essay, the term can serve as specific evidence. It fits a prompt about how interest groups affect policy or whether the Court is too insulated from the public. In multiple choice, expect standalone or text-stimulus questions about what these briefs do.

The correct answer choice describes a brief as information that justices may consider. It doesn't decide the case, and the Court isn't required to follow it.

Amicus filer versus a party to the lawsuit

In Brown, the NAACP lawyers and the Justice Department both argued against segregation, but only one of them filed an amicus brief. Calling the NAACP an amicus filer is the wrong answer, and sorting out who's who helps:

• Parties (petitioner and respondent) are the ones actually suing or being sued. Their lawyers file the main briefs and give oral argument. In Brown, the NAACP lawyers represented the families, so that was direct litigation.
• Amicus filers are outsiders to the lawsuit. They submit written arguments supporting a side, and they don't run the case.
• A petition for certiorari is a party's request that the Court hear the case at all. It's a different document from an amicus brief, even though outside groups sometimes file amicus briefs urging the Court to take a case.

A quick test: if the group is suing or being sued, it's a party, and its brief isn't an amicus brief.