Lemon v. Kurtzman
Headline: Court allows several organizations to file amicus briefs in multiple appeals, denies some late filings and refuses one request to argue orally, affecting which groups may submit views in those appeals.
Holding: The Court granted most motions for organizations to file amicus briefs in several appeals, denied certain untimely amicus filings as noted by three Justices, and denied one request to participate in oral argument.
- Allows several organizations to submit amicus briefs in these appeals.
- Denies late-filed briefs and oral-argument participation for at least one group.
- Keeps oral advocacy limited to the main parties in the cases.
Summary
Background
This entry records the Court’s handling of procedural motions in several appeals that came from federal district courts in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. A number of organizations — including the National Association of Laymen, a Connecticut NAACP conference, the Center for Law and Education, the National Catholic Educational Association, and the American Jewish Committee — asked permission to file friend-of-the-court (amicus) briefs. One attorney, Peter L. Costas, sought to participate in oral argument for an amicus group.
Reasoning
The central question was whether to allow these outside organizations to file briefs and whether an outside lawyer could take part in oral argument. The Court granted many of the requests to file amicus briefs, including leave to file out of time in at least one instance and specific grants in Nos. 569 and 570. The Court denied Costas’s request to participate in oral argument. Three Justices — the Chief Justice, Justice Marshall, and Justice Blackmun — stated that the motions should be denied because they were filed late.
Real world impact
By allowing most amicus filings, the Court let those organizations place written arguments before the Justices in these appeals. Denying the oral-argument request kept live argument limited to the main parties. These orders are procedural steps about participation, not final decisions on the appeals’ legal issues; the ultimate outcomes on the merits remain for later action.
Dissents or concurrances
Three Justices explicitly disagreed with the grants on timeliness grounds, saying the filings were untimely and should have been refused. This disagreement concerns only procedural access, not the underlying cases.
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?