| name | amicus-brief |
| language | en |
| description | Drafts and analyzes U.S. appellate amicus curiae briefs for non-parties with Rule 29/Rule 37 compliance, unique perspective development, and Bluebook-ready citations. Use when asked to draft or review an amicus brief, friend-of-the-court brief, non-party brief, or anything involving FRAP 29, Supreme Court Rule 37, or appellate amicus practice. |
Amicus Brief
Draft or evaluate U.S. appellate amicus briefs that add a distinct, rule-compliant perspective.
Prerequisites
Gather before starting:
- Case posture, issues presented, and parties' arguments or briefs
- Amicus identity, constituency, and concrete stake in outcome
- Applicable rules (FRAP 29, state equivalent, or SCOTUS Rule 37) and local formatting requirements
- Consent status or plan for motion for leave; filing deadline
- Legal authorities and any empirical or policy materials to cite
Quick Start
Select mode:
| Mode | Trigger | Output |
|---|
| Drafting | Creating a new brief | Full brief with all required sections |
| Analysis | Reviewing an existing brief | Structured critique with compliance table |
Drafting Workflow
- [ ] Confirm jurisdiction and rule set (federal, state, SCOTUS)
- [ ] Verify consent or prepare motion for leave
- [ ] Identify unique contribution — do not duplicate party arguments
- [ ] Build authority map: controlling precedent, persuasive precedent, statutes, secondary sources
- [ ] Integrate expertise or policy evidence with clear sourcing
- [ ] Draft sections in required order; verify word/page limits
- [ ] Add disclosure statements, certificates, and signatures
- [ ] Run compliance pass: Bluebook, formatting, service, ECF rules
Required Sections (adapt to court rules)
- Table of Contents
- Table of Authorities
- Statement of Interest
- Summary of Argument
- Argument (headed sections)
- Conclusion
- Certificates and disclosures
Argument Structure
| Section | Purpose |
|---|
| Interest | Establish legitimacy and why amicus perspective matters |
| Summary | One page max — unique thesis and outcome requested |
| Argument | 2–4 points, each tied to controlling law and practical impact |
| Conclusion | Clear request for disposition or rule adoption |
Template
[Cover / Caption]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF INTEREST
[Amicus constituency, expertise, direct stake.]
CONSENT / LEAVE STATUS
[Consent or motion for leave.]
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
[Thesis and outcome sought.]
ARGUMENT
I. [Legal principle + unique perspective]
II. [Policy/technical evidence tied to law]
III. [Practical consequences or administrability]
CONCLUSION
[Requested disposition.]
DISCLOSURE OF AUTHORSHIP AND FUNDING
[FRAP 29(a)(4)(E) / SCOTUS Rule 37.6.]
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
[If required.]
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
[Word count method and total.]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[Method, date, recipients.]
Analysis Workflow
- [ ] Identify distinct contribution; check for duplication of party arguments
- [ ] Assess credibility and fit of amicus interest
- [ ] Evaluate authority strength and citation accuracy
- [ ] Flag new issues not raised by parties
- [ ] Check rule compliance and formatting
- [ ] Summarize core arguments and policy impacts
Rule Compliance Checks
Verify for the specific court:
| Requirement | Confirm |
|---|
| Consent or leave | Parties' consent filed or motion for leave prepared |
| Timing | Filing deadline — often 7 days after supported party's principal brief [VERIFY] |
| Length | Word/page limits for amicus briefs [VERIFY] |
| Disclosure | Authorship and funding (FRAP 29(a)(4)(E); SCOTUS Rule 37.6) |
| Corporate disclosure | Entity disclosure if required (FRAP 26.1 or local equivalent) |
| Service | Proper service on all parties with proof |
| Format | Font, spacing, margins, cover color, ECF requirements |
Pitfalls
- Duplicating party briefs — add distinct law, data, or consequences only
- Introducing new issues — frame extra-record materials as legislative facts or policy context
- Citation errors — use Bluebook format; verify every authority
- Advocacy excess — keep tone neutral, precise, judicially useful
- Ignoring local rules — jurisdictional rules override FRAP/SCOTUS defaults
- Confidential information — redact or omit anything not in the public record
