On Lee v. United States
Headline: Court criticizes the Government’s automatic refusal to allow amicus briefs and affirms that parties’ consent under Rule 27 should let outside groups file, easing the Court’s workload and preserving established filing practice.
Holding:
- Limits the Government’s ability to automatically block amicus briefs.
- Makes it easier for outside groups to file briefs if the parties agree.
- Reduces the Court’s burden deciding each amicus application.
Summary
Background
This memorandum addresses a dispute between the Government (through the Solicitor General) and the Court about who decides when outside groups may file amicus (friend-of-the-court) briefs. The Court’s rule on filing such briefs assumes amici may participate when the parties consent. The Government had been routinely withholding consent, prompting this application and the Court’s statement about the rule’s proper operation.
Reasoning
The Justice writing the memorandum explained that the filing rule presupposes the Court will receive amicus help when the parties agree. The Solicitor General’s practice of automatically refusing consent shifts to the Court a duty that the rule assigns to litigants, including the Government. If all parties acted that way, amici would be largely blocked or the Court would face an excessive burden deciding each request, which would frustrate an orderly process for handling such briefs.
Real world impact
The memorandum makes clear that the Government should not routinely veto amicus participation when parties consent, and it stresses that the Court may accept briefs where it seems unreasonable for the parties to withhold consent. That outcome makes it easier for outside organizations to offer perspectives in cases and preserves a fair, manageable sifting process for the Court. This is a procedural ruling about filing practice rather than a decision on the merits of any underlying case.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Black agreed with the memorandum and added that the Court’s rule for filing amici briefs should be made more liberal.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?