About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

20 J.L. & Pol. 33 (2004)
Best Friends - Supreme Court Law Clerks on Effective Amicus Curiae Briefs

handle is hein.journals/jlp20 and id is 43 raw text is: Best Friends? Supreme Court Law Clerks on Effective Amicus Curiae Briefs Kellyf Lynch* INTRODUCTION Precisely what influences the justices of the United States Supreme Court? Numerous scholars have pondered this question, addressing it from many different perspectives: the influence of law clerks, the preferences of Congress, and the role of public opinion.1 To date, however, none have examined the influence of amicus curiae briefs (amicus briefs) from the perspective of former Supreme Court law clerks.2 This article draws upon a new data set featuring seventy interviews with former Supreme Court law clerks who served from 1966-2001. Their personal insights clarify the role of these unsolicited briefs-a judicial lobbying tool that organizations and individuals aspiring to influence the Court's decision-making process increasingly employ. During the October 2003 term, the subject of amicus briefs received significant public attention. A record 107 briefs were filed in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases3 Grutter v. Bollinger,4 and Gratz v. Bollinger,5 while an impressive 33 amicus briefs * Department of Justice, Tax Division. BA. University of Pennsylvania, 2003. The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely my own and do not reflect those of the Department ofJustice. I would like to thank Kathryn Dunn Tenpas for her invaluable advice and encouragement. 1 See Kevin T. McGuire, Lobbyists, Revolving Doors, and the U.S. Supreme Court, 16J.L. & POL. 113, 114 (2000); Thomas G. Hansford & David F. Damore, Congressional Preferences, Perceptions of Threat, and Supreme Court Decision Making, 28 AM. POL. Q. 490 (2000); William Mishler & Reginald S. Sheehan, The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions, 87 AM. POL. Sci. REV. 87 (1993). 2 Henceforth, amicus curiae briefs will be referred to as amicus briefs; filers of amicus briefs will be referred to as amicus filers or amici. 3 Tony Mauro, Court Affirms Continued Need for Preferences, N.Y. L.J., June 23, 2003, at I [hereinafter Mauro, Court Affirms]. 4 123 S. Ct. 2325 (2003). 5 123 S. Ct. 2411 (2003).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most