In 2015, Douglas NeJaime and Reva Siegel identified complicity-based conscience claims as a subcategory of religious liberty claims, which feature objections to generally applicable laws based on religious convictions that harm third parties. Here, we observe that Muslim-Americans have filed or joined amicus curiae briefs in support of litigants on both sides of the recent complicity-based conscience cases of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado (2018), Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021). This divergence of legal views within the Muslim-American community points to a broader rift in society generally toward issues involving the navigation of identity and faith in the context of American liberalism. In this article, we show that opposing arguments by Muslim-Americans in these complicity-based conscience cases presuppose two different conceptions of liberalism: (1) liberalism as the pursuit of broad religious, cultural, and value pluralism (modus vivendi), and (2) liberalism as the pursuit of social cohesion, assimilation, and fraternité among diverse constituencies (vivre ensemble). Muslim-Americans who advance a modus vivendi vision of liberalism base their arguments mainly on the view that Islam and other minority religions involve specific beliefs, doctrines, and moral injunctions regarding, inter alia, rules of personal conduct in society that deserve distinctive legal protections. Muslim-Americans who support a vivre ensemble conception of liberalism prioritize the uniform enforcement of civil rights laws over religion-based objections and, in doing so, seek an overlapping consensus between their beliefs and prevailing conceptions of expansive civil liberties.

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.

With the rise of originalism as an interpretive strategy, history has come to play an increasingly prominent role in the reasoning and methodology of the United States Supreme Court. That development has, by necessity, also shaped the approach to constitutional interpretation taken by other parties, including the large and growing number of groups who file amicus curiae briefs. When the amici in question are religious entities, this article suggests, this “historical turn” at times takes the shape of narrating aspects of a tradition’s sacred history for the benefit of both the Court and other, lay audiences. This article examines three recent amicus briefs by one of the most consistent and prolific religious amici, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Across these briefs, this author traces the construction and deployment of history—both Catholic and American—as a middle term for negotiating the relationship between the US Constitution and its interpretation, on the one hand, and the interests and priorities of the religious tradition, on the other.

We use Supreme Court amicus curiae briefs filed by seven religious groups—four liberal and three conservative—to understand the changing nature of political conflict between American religious groups in the predominantly White Protestant tradition from 1969 to 2020. Religious groups on both sides of the ideological divide have increased the frequency of their amicus filings, and increasingly become involved in issue areas which were once primarily the concern of groups on the other side. These findings suggest that the culture war that redefined party politics in America has also shaped religious activism, including legal activism. We argue that these groups have increased their involvement in a wider range of issues for two reasons: their rivalry for influence over the nation's moral center has become more encompassing and overtly political, and their appreciation for and consciously developed ability to tap into the courts' influence on American politics has grown.

This contribution examines access to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in the first decade of its operation. Compared with other regional human rights Courts over the corresponding period, the African Court has decided more contentious cases. Direct access accounts for this difference. Acceptance by States of optional direct access is a necessary but insufficient condition for actual access. The reasons for the Commission's reluctance to refer cases, which hampered indirect access to the Court, are investigated. Although the Court's advisory jurisdiction has found limited application, it has welcomed amici curiae and showed some acceptance of the role of original complainants before the Court.

Most studies of amicus influence in both federal and state courts assume that the information provided in these briefs is the mechanism through which amici influence court outcomes. However, the question of how individual state supreme court judges respond to this third-party information and whether or not judicial responses are conditioned by differing methods of judicial retention is rarely theorized. Using social-psychological theories of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, this article investigates how ideological predispositions and electoral institutions structure the responsiveness of state high-court judges to amicus brief information. Utilizing an original dataset of more than 14,000 votes of state high-court judges across three distinct areas of law, this article tests competing theories of amicus influence to determine how state high-court judges utilize amicus information to render judicial decisions. Results are generally supportive of the informational theory of amicus influence in complex areas of law. However, a conditioning relationship of retention method suggests that competitive elections may alter the mechanism of amicus brief influence such that judicial responsiveness to third-party briefs is more closely tied to the reelection and campaign fundraising considerations of individual judges in politically contentious areas of law.

International law scholars frequently seek to participate in international legal proceedings as amici curiae. Often they do so by ‘piggy-backing’ onto the submissions of NGOs and other advocacy groups. Occasionally – but increasingly in recent years – they do so in their own names, purporting to offer ‘pure’ academic expertise, and generating certain expectations of scholarly neutrality. This article focuses on the latter trend, which the authors argue has the potential to re-shape the scholar-adjudicator dialogue in interesting ways. Under the traditional approach towards ‘teachings’, the decision of whether, how and with whom to engage is firmly in the hands of the adjudicators. The proliferation of academic amicus briefs threatens to disrupt this arrangement. It also brings certain benefits: the briefs are often more ‘on point’ than doctrinal writings, while openness to unsolicited academic submissions encourages plurality and reduces reliance on reputation as a measure of scholarly quality. Our survey of the emerging practice across various international courts and tribunals indicates that adjudicators tend to be reticent when it comes to the reception of unsolicited academic amicus briefs, however, we identify several instances of productive engagement. This leads us to conclude that it would be unduly gloomy to characterize the emerging practice as a ‘dialogue of the deaf’. A fairer assessment would be that the academic amicus trend is bringing about a modest adjustment in the way that international law scholars and adjudicators engage with each other.

The legal concept of ‘amicus curiae’ (friend of the court) was unknown in Israeli law until 1999 when, in the course of a well-known legal decision (the Kuzli case), the Israeli Supreme Court adopted this common law concept as part of Israeli law. Almost fifteen years have elapsed since the legal precedent set in Kuzli, during which time the criteria for participation as an amicus curiae have been established.

The aim of this study was to empirically explore and analyse the ways in which the procedural institution of amicus curiae has been used and adopted under Israeli law, and the extent to which it has influenced judicial decisions. The study has used empirical methods, including the collection of quantitative data from computerised databases in Israel concerning cases in which an application to be recognised as an amicus curiae was made.

The main findings indicate that, over the last decade, the number of applications for recognition as an amicus curiae has grown steadily. Most of these applications were made by non-governmental organisations in attempting to support private individuals engaged in legal proceedings against the state or for-profit corporations. The findings reveal that the courts have approved most of these applications.