Dodgy Data From Amicus Briefs Influencing The Supreme Court

Supreme Court cases are increasingly influenced by facts provided to the justices in amicus brief filings, which are often filed at the last minute and filled with “advocacy-motivated claims of factual expertise,” writes law professor Allison Orr Larsen in an article to be published by The Virginia Law Review. Some recent briefs analyzed by the New York Times have presented facts backed up by blog posts, emails, or studies paid for or conducted by the group writing the brief, and in some cases commissioned seemingly for the sole purpose of influencing the Court. Despite the sometimes questionable material, the Court cited factual statistics from amicus briefs 124 times from 2008 to 2013, the Times reported. Justices themselves have at times recognized the problem. In a 2011 dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “Supreme Court briefs are an inappropriate place to develop the key facts in a case.”