1250 Connecticut Ave, NW, Ste 200
tel/fax (202) 355-9452

Amicus Curiae Briefs

Amicus briefs — also known as friend of the court briefs — provide an opportunity for the interested or affected public to supplement the briefing by the parties to litigation.

Filing an Amicus Curiae Brief

Federal and State appellate courts accept amicus briefs both in support of a party and in support of neither party. Typically, one can file an amicus brief with consent of the parties or, if they decline to consent, by motion to the court. Some trial courts also accept amicus briefs by motion, although (unlike appellate courts) trial courts typically do not have rules that govern the filing of amicus briefs. In federal appellate courts, the deadline for amicus briefs is typically seven days after the deadline of the party that the amicus brief supports. Some states, such as California, allow amicus briefs after the parties have completed their briefing, with a further opportunity for the parties to respond to any amicus briefs filed.

Sample Amicus Curiae Briefs

  • Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Petitioners in EMA v. SCAQMD, No. 02-1343 (U.S.)
    Issue:
    Federal Preemption of Local Vehicle Standards
    Clients:
    American Road & Transportation Builders Association, American Trucking Associations, Inc., Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association, National Association of Home Builders, and Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition
     
  • Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondent in Envtl. Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., No. 05-848 (U.S.)
    Issue:
    Clean Air Act New Source Review
    Client:
    APA Watch
     
  • Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Petitioners in Texas Dep't of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. , No. 13-1371 (U.S.)
    Issue:
    Availability and scope of disparate-impact claims under the Fair Housing Act
    Client: Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund
     
  • Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Appellants in Hotze v. Sebelius, No. 14-20039  (5th Cir.)
    Issue:
    Constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e., "ObamaCare") under the Fifth Amendment
    Client: Association of American Physicians & Surgeons
     
  • Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Appellants in Hotze v. Sebelius, No. 14-20039  (5th Cir.)
    Issue:
    Constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e., "ObamaCare") under the Origination Clause
    Clients: U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz and U.S. Reps. Pete Sessions, Robert Aderholt, Joe Barton, Kerry Bentivolio, Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Kevin Brady, Paul Broun, Vern Buchanan, John Carter, Steve Chabot, Tom Cole, K. Michael Conaway, Paul Cook, Kevin Cramer, John Culberson, Jeff Duncan, Blake Farenthold, John Fleming, Bill Flores, Scott Garrett, Bob Gibbs, Louie Gohmert, Trey Gowdy, Morgan Griffith, Ralph M Hall, Richard Hudson, Tim Huelskamp, Lynn Jenkins, Bill Johnson, Sam Johnson, Walter Jones, Steve King, Jack Kingston, John Kline, Doug LaMalfa, Leonard Lance, James Lankford, Michael T. McCaul, Patrick T. McHenry, Mark Meadows, Jeff Miller, Mick Mulvaney, Randy Neugebauer, Richard Nugent, Pete Olson, Robert Pittenger, Bill Posey, Scott Rigell, Phil Roe, Keith Rothfus, Matt Salmon, Steve Scalise, Mike Simpson, Lamar Smith, Steve Stockman, Lee Terry, Mac Thornberry, Randy Weber, Daniel Webster, Lynn A. Westmoreland, Roger Williams, Joe Wilson, Robert J. Wittman, Robert Woodall, Ted Yoho, and Don Young
     
  • Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Appellees in Parker v. Franklin County Community School Corp., No. 10-3595 (7th Cir.)
    Issue: Enforceability of Title IX regulations
    Client: Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund
     
  • Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Appellees in Stormans Inc. v. Seleky, No. 07-36039 (9th Cir.)
    Issue: Pharmacists' Right of Conscience
    Client: APA Watch
     
  • Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Appellants in EMA v. SCAQMD, No. 05-56654 (9th Cir.)
    Issue: Federal Preemption of Local Vehicle Standards
    Clients:
    Bell Cab Company, Inc., San Gabriel Transit, Inc., Independent Taxi Owners Association, Los Angeles Checker Cab Cooperative, Inc., L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc. d.b.a. Yellow Cab Co., United Independent Taxi Drivers, Inc., Beverly Hills Transit Cooperative, Inc., United Taxi of San Fernando Valley, South Bay Cooperative, Inc. d.b.a. United Checker Cab, and Long Beach Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc.
     
  • Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Appellees in Chamber of Commerce v. Lockyer, No. 03-55166 (9th Cir. en banc)
    Issue: Federal Preemption of State Labor Restrictions
    Clients: Bell Cab Company, Inc., San Gabriel Transit, Inc., Independent Taxi Owners Association, Los Angeles Checker Cab Cooperative, Inc., L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc. d.b.a. Yellow Cab Co., United Independent Taxi Drivers, Inc., Beverly Hills Transit Cooperative, Inc., United Taxi of San Fernando Valley, South Bay Cooperative, Inc. d.b.a. United Checker Cab, and Long Beach Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc.
     
  • Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Neither Party in Utility Air Resources Group v. EPA, Nos. 12-1146 & Consolidated Cases (U.S.)
    Issue:
    Climate Change and Clean Air Act Judicial Review
    Client:
    American Road & Transportation Builders Association

What's new? Additional samples available upon request.