Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Friends of the Supreme CourtInterest Groups and Judicial Decision Making$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Paul M. Collins

Print publication date: 2008

Print ISBN-13: 9780195372144

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2009

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195372144.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 14 October 2019

Amici Curiae and Dissensus on the Supreme Court

Amici Curiae and Dissensus on the Supreme Court

Chapter:
(p.139) CHAPTER 6 Amici Curiae and Dissensus on the Supreme Court
Source:
Friends of the Supreme Court
Author(s):

Paul M Collins

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195372144.003.0006

This chapter investigates whether amicus curiae briefs contribute to a justice's decision to write or join a regular concurring, special concurring, or dissenting opinion. It begins with a discussion of the importance of understanding separate opinion writing, focusing specifically on how this type of dissensus serves to highlight weaknesses in the majority opinion, presents avenues to distinguish the majority opinion for future litigation, in addition to softening disappointment with the Court's majority opinion by illustrating to members of the thwarted public that their position is supported by at least a minority of the Court. It then argues that, by providing the justices with myriad information regarding the potential legal and policy ramifications of a decision, amicus briefs create ambiguity in the justices' already uncertain decision making. This hypothesis is empirically tested by examining justices' decisions to author or join regular concurring, special concurring, and dissenting opinions during the 1946-2001 terms.

Keywords:   amicus curiae, Supreme Court, dissenting opinion, concurring opinion, separate opinion, interest groups, law, policy, uncertainty

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .