TBA Law Blog

TBA Law Blog

Law Prof: Justices Shouldn't Believe Everything in Briefs

Posted by: Brittany Sims on Sep 3, 2014
News Type: U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court justices are increasingly citing in their opinions facts contained within friend-of-the-court briefs — a perilous trend, law professor Allison Orr Larson from the College of William and Mary says in a recent New York Times article. Some amicus briefs are careful and valuable, citing peer-reviewed studies and noting contrary evidence, while others cite more questionable materials. Some “studies” presented in amicus briefs were paid for or conducted by the group that submitted the brief and published only on the Internet. Others seem to have been created for the purpose of influencing the court. Over the five terms from 2008 to 2013, the court’s opinions cited factual assertions from amicus briefs 124 times, Larsen found. The trend is at odds with the ordinary role of appellate courts, which are not supposed to be in the business of determining facts. That is the job of the trial court, where evidence is submitted, sifted and subjected to the adversary process, the article notes.

Law-Related Blogs AND PODCASTS

Check out other law-related blogs and podcasts generated from the Tennessee legal community or of interest to the Tennessee lawyers.