The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Inimicus Curiae Briefs
Lawyers know about amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, which give interested or expert third parties an opportunity to provide courts with a perspective that the parties might have omitted. But we more rarely hear about inimicus curiae briefs, even though it turns out that many supposed amicus briefs are, in fact, inimicus briefs that have been, er, accidentally mislabeled.
A few tips for writing inimicus briefs from someone who's read a few; I posted this in 2003, but was recently reminded about it.
[1.] Focus primarily on repeating the arguments of your favored party. After all, anything worth saying once is worth being said by everyone who wants to say it. The official term for this (originally from Law French) is the "moi aussi principle."
[2.] If you do have a genuinely original twist to add to the analysis, don't just stick with it—that's bad form. Be sure to surround it with lots of other points that echo what your favored party says (see item 1 above). A ratio of 10 page of repetition to 1 page of new material is the norm, though experts believe that even this is too low.
[3.] Always include lots of general rhetoric, such as "The importance of the timeless guarantees of the First Amendment cannot be overstated in our marketplace of ideas, and the republic on which it rests." Judges and law clerks just love that sort of stuff.
NB: This is especially true when filing briefs before the Supreme Court. The sorts of close and difficult cases that the Court hears are almost always decided primarily by applying general slogans. In fact, it's considered disrespectful of the Court to focus on mere factual or doctrinal details, or to use more mundane language.
[4.] Always keep in mind that (according to Rule 3.7),
The primary purpose of an inimicus curiae brief is to allow the inimicus to tell donors and other supporters that the inimicus Has Filed A Brief Before The Court expressing the timeless verities for which the inimicus and its supporters stand.
Any departure from this purpose is frowned on.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Finally a new lawyer joke! Fortunately, it's over my head.
The sad thing is that I am not sure this is parody....
You forgot about portending and forecasting immediate doom if the court does not rule in favor of the advocate. "If the court refuses to grant the plaintiff relief sought fire and brimstone will surely reign from the skies, rivers and sea will boil, forty years of darkness will descend, human sacrifice will become the norm, and God forbid dogs and cats will live together peacefully."
Point number 3 actually seems like it would have been sound advice when Justice Kennedy was on the court.
Interestingly, Google translate translates "amicus curiae" as "friend of the court", but "inimicus curiae" comes back as "Senate enemy".
Hmm, I've tried a different on-line translator and got the same curious result.
curiae by itself translates to Senate.
Amicus curiae translates to friend of the court
inimicus curiae translate to Senate enemy.
I guess that's because amicus curiae is a term of art that isn't the normal meaning of the words?
"Amicus" means friend and curiae (genitive of curia) means "of the court", so that is about the most literal translation imaginable.
Especially since the Latin for "Senate" is "Senatus".
While the Senate did meet in various Curiae (which can be translated as either "court" or "courthouse" depending on the usage), which were named after whoever built them, it never referred to the Senate itself, but the Senate house.
Two different Latin->English on line translators I tried both translate Curiae as Senate.
On Google translate if I go English->Latin it will return Snatus as the primary translation for Senate but returns several options of which one is:
curia: court, Senate, hall, curia, assembly room, town hall
A "Curia" was originally an administrative tribal division in the Roman Republic, which had very kinds of legal authority. It came to refer to different kinds of assemblies or councils, and also metonymically to the buildings where the Senate assembled (the Curia Hostilia built by Tullus Hostilius, the Curia Pompeiana where Julius Caesar was assassinated, and the Curia Julia begun by Julius Caesar and completed by the triumvirate) and thus to the Senate itself.
You gotta trust a man with the name "noscitur a sociis" on questions like that.
Google Translate for Latin is really poor, as I coincidentally learned the other day while giving it a spin for something else (i.e., different from the Latin in this post).
Your best shot is just using an online L->E dictionary and doing it word-by-word, but as Noscitur (who else?) points out, you'd have to be aware of any words that were declined or conjugated etc. And of course you lose out on all the grammar too.
A friend who's a Classics grad student has this advice for using Google Translate on Latin: "Don't. Just don't."
I was unaware that a sense of humor survived the bar exam.
Well done!
I would have to give this piece an 8/10 for satire. I would have given it 10 if it was written up as a formal legal doc and discussed Federal Rules for submitting said briefs. lol.
and thanks for for laugh, i needed it. It took me to bullet 2 to recognize the satire.
Priceless.
I seem to remember the old chief Rehnquist saying 'no judge ever complained about a legal brief being too short'. What ever one thinks about him he was one of the best legal writers I know of.
Best brief I ever saw was in a rather simple tort case probably about 20 years ago. The only real argument in the case was if punitive damages applied. The Defendant had an argument that the leading state appellate case was not applicable to the situation, but instead of making that argument in a concise fashion they dropped a whooper of a 100+ page brief (at the trial court level) delving into common law and the historical origins of the tort in question. The Plaintiff responded with a bare bones brief, 4 pages in length, merely citing the lead case and saying "Plaintiff agrees with all the other failed argument Defendant makes..."
The court, a few months later, entered an order, two pages long, finding punitive damages were applicable and did not cite even one argument or case from defendant's brief. I wonder if the judge even read it.
What if the brief begins,
"It should be clear even to the stupidest judge that . . ."
Ah, so you've read the Gondor brief.
(To be fair, that one was "You'll rule for me unless you're a coward.")
Funny, Gene, funny! You're a funny man! But still not as funny as your all-time classic, "But my prediction is that (setting aside the surface matters related to the epidemic) it will be a Jan. 20 of an inauguration year much like any other." In addition, it looks like we will be seeing more of Donald Trump's "indubitably unusual and troublesome character traits" in the future than you expected. Hey, no one's perfect!