Lobbyists before the Court

Abstract

Many persons and groups do not hesitate to use their influence to persuade agencies of government to make decisions which they like. Of course, if reasonably regulated and ethically done, this is not only proper but often desirable even if the parties have axes of their own to grind. Lobbying before Congress and the bureaucracy was never on such a widespread scale as in the period since the war. It has been a time of great public confusion on both national and international issues, and great economic and social values have been at stake. The astronomical federal budget and the post-war tensions in our foreign affairs have brought the lobbyists to Washington by the thousands. Vast sums and powerful organizations are behind them and whether they utilize mink coats and deep-freezers or employ more ethical methods, they are effective forces in molding our post-war nation. The Supreme Court has not been immune. The lobbying device available for use before the Court is the brief amicus. When the nearly two hundred members of the Committee of Law Teachers Against Segregation in Legal Education filed their brief amicus curiae in the Sweatt case,' they were using their influence in an effort to obtain a decision to their liking. By the October, 1948 term amici had become a genuine problem for the justices and their clerks. In that term there were 75 filed in 57 cases. All but 14 were submitted with the consent of the parties and only 3 motions for leave to file were denied. Even a cursory examination of these indicates the timewasting character of most of them. To be sure, a workmanlike brief such as that of the Committee of Law Teachers is a real help to the Court; but for the most part, amici are repetitious at best and emotional explosions at worst. Indeed, the justices have, on occasion, been plagued with floods of post-card petitions and letters, visited by personal delegations and annoyed by alleged briefs submitted without pretense of party consent or motion for leave to file. The Daily Worker even went so far as to request its readers to file their personal