Having served as chair of a very active amicus committee for the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers years ago, it became clear how amicus could use its platform to bring issues and arguments to the fore that the parties might otherwise have neglected or been precluded from doing. It was a powerful opportunity.
But one guiding rule was that anything offered had to be accurate in terms of being fully supported. The idea was that claiming a fact not in evidence, or unsupported, would destroy credibility and render the effort worthless. The judges would laugh at us if we didn’t maintain our cred.
Apparently, that’s not exactly the case in all courts, or at least not before the United States Supreme Court. Via Adam Liptak in his New York Times Sidebar column:
The Supreme Court received more than 80 friend-of-the-court briefs in the Hobby Lobby case. Most of these filings, also called amicus briefs, were dull and repetitive recitations of familiar legal arguments.
Others stood out. They presented fresh, factual information that put the case in a broader context.
The justices are hungry for such data. Their opinions are increasingly studded with citations of facts they learned from amicus briefs.
