The article discusses an increasing trend where the Trump administration is filing more "uninvited" or unsolicited amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) briefs in cases before the Supreme Court. These briefs are filed without being requested by the court and often aim to influence whether the court grants review of a case, pauses lower-court decisions through stay requests, or shapes the specific questions presented for review.
Key points include:
-
Impact on Case Disposition: The administration believes these briefs can influence the Supreme Court's decision-making process regarding petitions for review and stay applications.
-
Strategic Question Framing: In some cases, such as Hamm v. Smith and Goldey v. Fields, the government has proposed narrower questions or outcomes than those requested by petitioners, potentially to avoid overruling established precedents like Bivens.
-
Potential Risks: While these briefs can be influential, they also pose risks such as diluting their impact if used too frequently and increasing the workload of the solicitor general’s office.
-
Current Case Example - St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy: The administration has filed an uninvited am
Read the full article at SCOTUSblog
Want to create content about this topic? Use Nemati AI tools to generate articles, social posts, and more.
