An amicus brief, the shortened term used to refer to amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief, is a legal document filed by someone (typically an organization) that is not party to a case under appeal but who has an interest in the case’s development. The content of these briefs ranges widely, with some commentators viewing them as too often simply repeating the claims of the parties before the court (see Walbolt and Lang 2003). In this regard, effective briefs have been shown to be those that raise arguments or legal authorities that the actual parties have not raised, propose intermediate or different positions than those provided by the parties, bring useful technical and scientific knowledge to the court’s attention, or suggest practical effects of decisions in contexts that parties may not be interested or aware (see Kearney and Merrill 2000). Although originally meant to be neutral, amicus briefs now almost invariably align themselves with one of the parties. Although they...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
American Psychological Association. (1987, March 16). [Amicus curiae brief filed in the U.S. Court of appeals for the eighth circuit in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)]. Retrieved December 31, 2010, from http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/index-chron.aspx
American Psychological Association. (1989, September 1). [Amicus curiae brief filed in U.S. Supreme court in Ohio v. Akron center for reproductive health, Inc., 497 U.S. 502 (1990) and Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)]. Retrieved December 31, 2010, from http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/index-chron.aspx
American Psychological Association. (2004, July 19). [Amicus curiae brief filed in U.S. Supreme court in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)]. Retrieved December 31, 2010, from http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/index-chron.aspx
Fischer, K., Stein, Z., & Heikkinen, K. (2009). Narrow assessments misrepresent development and misguide policy: Comment on Steinberg, Steinberg, Cauffman, Woolard, Graham, and Banich (2009). The American Psychologist, 64, 595–600.
Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990).
Kearney, J. D., & Merrill, T. (2000). The influence of Amicus Curiae briefs on the Supreme Court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 148, 743–855.
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., Woolard, J., Graham, S., & Banich, M. (2009). Are adolescents less mature than adults? Minors’ access to abortion, the juvenile death penalty, and the alleged APA “flip-flop”. American Psychologist, 64, 583–594.
Walbolt, S. H., & Lang, J. H. (2003). Amicus briefs: Friend or foe of Florida courts? Stetson Law Review, 32, 269–308.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this entry
Cite this entry
Levesque, R.J.R. (2011). Amicus Brief. In: Levesque, R.J.R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Adolescence. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1695-2_662
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1695-2_662
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-1694-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-1695-2
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science