Stephen Wermiel of American University has this interesting post at SCOTUSblog on the amicus briefs in the case. As a frequent "friend of the court" there myself, I have a particular interest in the subject.
The Supreme Court is not alone in being divided, however. The closely watched case has also split the community of First Amendment lawyers who advocate free-speech rights in a broad range of lawsuits, friend-of-the-court briefs, scholarly articles and panel discussions.
This is unusual, although certainly not unprecedented. Political leaders, philosophers and different groups in our society often debate and disagree about the meaning of free speech and what the First Amendment covers. First Amendment lawyers, however, often tend to view issues and controversies through a similar free-speech filter.
Not so in the friend-of-the-court (or "amicus curiae") briefs filed in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Among more than 100 amicus briefs filed on both sides are a handful - also on both sides - that are written by or written for recognized First Amendment experts in private practice and in law schools. This column examines some of the amicus briefs and explores the differences in their approaches.
Years ago, CJLF was in another case that scrambled the usual lines. Wisconsin v. Mitchell involved a constitutional attack on that state's hate crime law. CJLF and the ACLU were on the same side, with two state CLUs on the other side. SCOTUS cases sometimes make strange brief-fellows.
Leave a comment