Courts and Social Participation in Latin America: The Use of Public Hearings and Amici Curiae

After providing background material related to the Supreme Court cases on “physician‐assisted suicide” (Washington v. Glucksberg, 1997, and Vacco v. Quill, 1997), this article presents the amicus curiae brief that was submitted to the United States Supreme Court by 2 national mental health organizations, a state psychological association, and an ad hoc coalition of mental health professionals. The document focuses on the role mental health professionals can play in discussions about hastened death. In particular, it is asserted that mental health professionals can assess capacity the decision‐making process, and the role of coercion in such decisions. The effect of the brief on the Supreme Court and within the organizations involved is also discussed.

Based on a review of 16 recently submitted amicus curiae briefs by the American Psychological Association (APA) to the Supreme Court of the United States and other important courts, Marcus et al. (2025) strongly suggest that these briefs contain a significant number of inaccurate citations. They argue that these miscitations (a) misinform the court about important psychological findings, (b) could lead to significant injustice and harm, and (c) jeopardize the reputation of the APA vis-à-vis the courts and public. In this commentary, while acknowledging that inaccurate citations should be corrected, we take issue with (a) the manner in which Marcus et al. coded APA's amicus curiae briefs, (b) the significance of the problems created by these miscitations, and (c) the authors' misunderstanding of courts' review and use of amicus curiae briefs in judicial decision making. In the end, while agreeing there might be a need for additional review to prevent inaccurate citation in amicus curiae briefs, we argue that most of the inaccurate citations are likely harmless errors with little effect on APA's reputation or court decisions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

How do organized interests select the Supreme Court cases in which to file amicus curiae briefs? Starting with the assumption that organized interests pursue policy influence, I argue that an organized interest will submit amicus curiae briefs in the cases that provide the greatest opportunity for the interest to influence the content of the majority opinion. Membership-based interests, however, will also have to consider the effect of their case-selection decisions on their ability to attract and retain membership support. I test my hypotheses with data on a large sample of organized interests and their amicus curiae brief filings in the 1991-1995 Supreme Court terms. The results of this analysis provide support for my hypotheses and indicate that organized interests seek out cases in which the justices are relatively information-poor. Membership-based interests also choose cases that allow for visible and apparently “successful” participation.

Public Participation Before the Court of Justice of the EU: Enhancing Outside Party Judicial Participation via Amicus Curiae Briefs This article assesses the participatory dimension of the EU judicial system against increasing demand for civil society’s participation before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). First, it explores the judicial participatory opportunity structure before the CJEU, that is the various legal remedies foreseen in the EU legal order. Second, it examines the realities of judicial practices open to both parties and third parties to a dispute by identifying the structural conditions preventing them from gaining access to the Court. It also documents the emergence of a new, informal practice of ‘shadow’ amicus curiae briefs aimed at countering limited outside third-party participation. Third, it assesses whether the extant CJEU’s opportunity structure available to outside parties to a dispute is in line with the Treaty-enshrined participatory imperative stemming from the principle of openness – Article 11 TEU (‘take into account citizens’ views) – that of equality – Article 9 TEU (‘equal attention to all stakeholders’) and Article 13 TEU (an institutional framework which serve citizens’ interests) – and that of participation under Article 10(3) TEU (‘Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union’), as they apply to the EU judicial system. Fourth, it argues that these principles require the CJEU to re-evaluate the current judicial framework to ensure that the EU judicial system appropriately addresses not only individual and societal interests when those are parties to a dispute but also when, albeit equally affected, they find themselves outside of it. Ultimately, it demonstrates that the practice of amicus curiae briefs may provide a suitable means to not only compensate for the for limited standing – including in third-party interventions – but also to broaden the Court’s access to the dispersed and untapped expertise and greater civil society participation in court proceedings, thus legitimising the CJEU’s output and throughput.

The WTO Appellate Body’s (AB’s) acceptance of an amicus curiae brief in the landmark US-Shrimp case raised a debate over the legitimacy of such briefs under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Proponents of permitting non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to make briefs as amicus curiae participation highlight the expertise offered by NGOs, increased transparency and enrichment of dialogue as grounds to justify their presence. It has also been argued that NGOs have greater freedom than the governments, and therefore comprehensively enhance the dispute proceedings. Such arguments have been vehemently opposed by developing countries such as India, Brazil, and Pakistan, which cite the systemic bias which would creep in by allowing the NGOs to act as amicus curiae. This is because of the disproportionate influence and funding which the NGOs in the Global North possess relative to such organizations in the developing countries. Concerns have also been raised over the increased administrative burden on the Secretariat and the absence of a well-defined procedure to permit briefs to the Panel. Reference is made to the General Council Meeting of 22 November 2000 and the Guidelines laid down by the General Council for Relations with NGOs in 1996. The absence of a functioning AB further merits re-evaluation of procedural mechanisms, including those relating to amicus curiae, to assess whether it can play a role in addressing institutional lacunas while protecting the member-driven WTO framework. The present article examines the necessity and permissible scope of NGOs as amicus curiae in WTO proceedings. This is done in light of the role served by the amicus curiae in the broader framework of public international law (PIL), assessing the benefits and concerns raised in institutions such as International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), where amicus curiae briefs are accepted. Relevant GATT 1994 and Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) provisions are analysed. Special emphasis is laid over Article 13 of the DSU, which enables the Panel to seek information from ‘any individual or body’ it deems fit, and Article 12.1 which allows for deviance from the procedure under Appendix 3 and thereby permits even unsolicited advice to be entertained. This is done keeping in view the concept of state sovereignty in international law, and the member-oriented framework of the WTO. Additionally, jurisprudence from cases like EC – Asbestos and US – Lead and Bismuth II is scrutinized, along with diverse scholarly perspectives. A distinction is drawn between the binding briefs of WTO experts as amicus curiae under Article 4.5 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and the DSU provisions. Ultimately, the article explores how the current DSU system could achieve a balance between the potential benefits and risks of amicus curiae briefs, seeking to improve WTO dispute settlement for all parties involved.

The investment treaty arbitral tribunals had experienced a significant rise in the disputes initiated for non-commercial activities, such as environment protection, public health, human rights and labour standards. It has witnessed the increased involvement of civil society as non-disputing parties to gain access to these forums as amicus curiae. Initially, none of the international investment instruments had explicitly authorized the submission of amicus curiae briefs. In 2001, the NAFTA tribunal accepted amicus curiae briefs in most celebrated Methanex decision, it was followed by UPS and Glamis disputes. On 19 May 2005, the ICSID tribunal also admitted amicus briefs on the basis of public interest for the first time in Vivendi case, followed by Aguas Provinciales dispute in 2006 for the purpose of distribution of water. As an outcome of this Tribunal, the ICSID Rules were amended in 2006 to make explicit provision to accept amicus curiae briefs. The acceptance of amicus briefs clearly shows the interest of the common public and renders the award in a transparent manner. It was delayed, but welcomed the arrival of non-disputing parties in the ICSID and the UNCITRAL administered arbitrations. But, the confidentiality of proceedings still remains as a general rule. Amicus-curiae are refused to access documents and to attend hearings unless disputing parties consented to do so. This practice clearly raised a serious doubt on greater transparency and equal participation of non-disputing parties in arbitral proceedings. It is in this connection, the paper makes a concerted attempt to address the pertinent issues involved in participation of amicus curiae in arbitral proceedings. It further looks into the details on various issues on access to information, publication of awards and admissibility of amicus curiae briefs.

The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are the law of the land and create precedents that bind lower courts and the justices. The impact of any Supreme Court decision is seldom confined to the two parties in the case. This presents two dilemmas. First, how can the Court accurately gauge the effects of its decision beyond the two parties? Second, for groups anxiously awaiting a decision that is going to impact their future, how do they convey their views to the justices? Perhaps the best solution to both is the amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief. Groups file such briefs to provide the Court with expertise, to expand or contract the issue in the case, and to provide an informal tally of public opinion. The amicus briefs serve the purposes of the justices as well. For their part, justices have a tremendous amount of work and a limited staff of clerks to help them. They are cognitive misers who cannot process all the relevant information they need and thus rely on cues and heuristics to help them make reasonably informed decisions. The existing scholarship provides a window into the growth of the use of amicus briefs and their impact on decisions. The use of the amicus brief also has important implications for representation and political participation. It can provide an entry to the system for groups that otherwise might lack access. The dramatic rise in the use of amicus briefs in the Supreme Court has altered the dynamics of decision making and provides the research agenda for the next round of studies.

For over 60 years, the American Psychological Association (APA) has submitted amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs with the aim of informing the courts about relevant scientific findings that may otherwise be absent from, or misrepresented in, the trial records of court cases. To achieve this aim, it is important that the summarized information accurately reflects the relevant scientific literature. The present study investigated the accuracy of the citations to empirical research in the 16 most recent APA amicus briefs by comparing the accuracy of the citing claims within these briefs to the original claims made in the cited articles. Case topics included false confessions, affirmative action, eyewitness testimony, child welfare, child custody, abortion, gender-affirming care, and sexual orientation change efforts. These briefs yielded 507 citations to empirical studies that were coded by pairs of independent coders. Results indicated that 72.8% of citations were accurate, 20.3% were somewhat accurate, and 6.9% were inaccurate. APA amicus briefs have been cited in a number of landmark rulings and have the potential to enhance the public welfare and the reputation of psychological science. It is, however, imperative that APA works to minimize miscitations in these briefs. We offer a set of recommendations for ways to reduce the number of miscitations in APA amicus briefs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Participation as amicus curiae has long been an important tactic of organized interests in litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court. We analyze amicus curiae briefs filed before the decision on certiorari and assess their impact on the Court's selection of a plenary docket. We hypothesize that one or more briefs advocating or opposing certiorari increase the likelihood of its being granted. We test this hypothesis using data from theUnited States ReportsandBriefs and Records of the United States Supreme Courtfor the 1982 term. The statistical analysis demonstrates that the presence of amicus curiae briefs filed prior to the decision on certiorari significantly and positively increases the chances of the justices' binding of a case over for full treatment—even after we take into account the full array of variables other scholars have hypothesized or shown to be substantial influences on the decision to grant or deny.

Since 1998, non-state actors have had access to submit an ‘amicus curiae’ brief to the WTO DSM. Like other forms of non-state actor involvement in the WTO, amicus curiae access has been controversial. Despite this controversy, non-state actors have made use of this access and submitted amicus curiae briefs. This article asks: What has come of these briefs once they are submitted and what explains how amicus are treated by the DSM? This article empirically maps amici in all disputes from 1998 (after amicus access was first recognized) through 2014, arguing that amicus access is conditioned by a combination of political and legal constraints faced by the WTO panels and AB. In particular, whether the content of an amicus is considered hinges on it having the endorsement of a disputing party and whether its consideration interferes with the WTO DSM's reputation for coherence. In all, these findings have implications for the debate over whether amicus curiae access is good or bad news for the WTO and non-state actor involvement.

The ANNUAL STATISTICAL REPORT FOR THE TEXAS JUDICIARY provides detailed information on caseload and dispositions for the Texas Supreme Court (SCOTX), but does not shed any light on amicus curiae participation in such cases. This paper endeavors to fill the void with quantitative data and identifying information on amicus curiae filings and filers. The friend-of-the-court activity data was extracted from the electronic docket management system of the Texas appellate court system (TAMES) and was processed into more user-friendly formats (tables and lists). Over the 12-month observation period, a total of 236 amicus submissions were received and docketed in a total of 134 state supreme court cases, consisting of two major categories: amicus briefs and amicus curiae letters. Relative to the entire SCOTX caseload of about 1,200 per year, amicus filings are relatively rare, occurring in about 10% of cases. The most common pattern is the submission of a single amicus brief (N=89 in 2019). In cases that the supreme court agrees to hear, however, friend-of-court activity is higher. Like the U.S. Supreme Court, the Texas high court exercises discretionary review. The legal disputes that receive a final merits review in the state’s court of last resort for civil matters are atypical: they are either important to the jurisprudence of the state, involve challenges to a high-dollar trial court judgment, or are otherwise salient. The greatest amici magnet in 2019 was No. 17-0862, styled Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. v. Enterprise Products Partners, L.P., a high-stakes dispute over a failed pipeline development project. It received 13 amicus curiae submissions that year, in addition to two already e-filed in 2018. The Supreme Court issues its opinion on January 31, 2020. The case with the second highest number of amicus filings was Barrow-Shaver v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, No. 17-0332, but ten (10) of them were submitted in 2018 and thus fall outside the study period. With three additional amicus filings in 2019, however, this oil & gas contract case still ranked in the top 20 in the dataset for the calendar year on which this report is based.

When and why will organized interests choose to lobby the U.S. Supreme Court by submitting amicus curiae briefs? This article argues that organized interests are most likely to lobby the Court when conditions increase their expectation of influencing the Court’s policy outputs. However, when deciding which policy venue to lobby, organized interests that rely on membership support will also have to consider the effect of their lobbying decisions on their ability to attract and retain members. Analysis of the amicus curiae brief filings of 579 organized interests suggests that an interest is more likely to submit amicus briefs at the Supreme Court when the Court is receptive to the positions advocated by the interest and the interest has participated at the Court in the past. The results also indicate that membership-based groups will take into account the extent to which relevant cases have been covered by the media when choosing whether to lobby the Court.

Interest group ideology is theoretically and empirically critical in the study of American politics, yet our measurement of this key concept is lacking both in scope and time. By leveraging network science and ideal point estimation, we provide a novel measure of ideology for amicus curiae briefs and organized interests with accompanying uncertainty estimates. Our Amicus Curiae Network scores cover more than 12,000 unique groups and more than 11,000 briefs across 95 years, providing the largest and longest measure of organized interest ideologies to date. Substantively, the scores reveal that: interests before the Court are ideologically polarized, despite variance in their coalition strategies; interests that donate to campaigns are more conservative and balanced than those that do not; and amicus curiae briefs were more common from liberal organizations until the 1980s, with ideological representation virtually balanced since then.

HE solicitor general is representative of executive branch before Supreme Court of United States. The office has four major functions: it screens losing cases involving United States for review to Supreme Court; it argues for or against review of cases not involving United States to Supreme Court; it argues cases for United States as direct party before Court; and it files amicus curiae briefs for litigants before Court when U.S. is not a direct party. This research note will examine solicitor general in its fourth stated role, amicus curiae. It will do so by updating and expanding upon works by Scigliano (1971), Puro (1971, 1981), O'Connor (1983) and Ulmer and Willison (1985). As O'Connor has noted, the solicitor general's amicus briefs have had a substantial effect on public policy, through without scrutiny given other arenas in political system (p. 264). Using population of amicus briefs filed from 1953 until 1982, this paper will describe and explain ideological direction of such briefs, factors affecting solicitors' success rates and votes of justices.

This study examines elite ( New York Times and Washington Post) and populace ( USA Today) media decisions to cover and to intensively cover U.S. Supreme Court outcomes in criminal procedure cases decided in the 1994 through 2010 terms. Two central constructs—case salience and decisional case complexity—are developed as a framework within which to understand media decisions. Case salience is conceptualized both in terms of contextual case salience (measured as the number of amicus curiae briefs filed on the merits) and issue-based case salience (cases that concern the fourth and eighth amendments). Decisional case complexity is measured as the number of unique majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions published as part of the case decision. The study utilizes measures from the U.S. Supreme Court Database developed by Harold Spaeth, supplemented with primary data collection of media articles and amicus curiae briefs. The study finds that case salience measures are the most powerful predictor variables for the decision to publish in both elite and populace press. Case salience measures are also the most dominant set of variables in explaining overall intensity of coverage in populace press. Decisional case complexity is the most important explanatory predictor of overall intensity of coverage in elite press. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.