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
1---2name: amicus-brief3description: 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.4---56# Amicus Brief78Draft or evaluate U.S. appellate amicus briefs that add a distinct, rule-compliant perspective.910## Prerequisites1112Gather before starting:13141. Case posture, issues presented, and parties' arguments or briefs152. Amicus identity, constituency, and concrete stake in outcome163. Applicable rules (FRAP 29, state equivalent, or SCOTUS Rule 37) and local formatting requirements174. Consent status or plan for motion for leave; filing deadline185. Legal authorities and any empirical or policy materials to cite1920## Quick Start2122Select mode:2324| Mode | Trigger | Output |25|---|---|---|26| Drafting | Creating a new brief | Full brief with all required sections |27| Analysis | Reviewing an existing brief | Structured critique with compliance table |2829## Drafting Workflow3031```32- [ ] Confirm jurisdiction and rule set (federal, state, SCOTUS)33- [ ] Verify consent or prepare motion for leave34- [ ] Identify unique contribution — do not duplicate party arguments35- [ ] Build authority map: controlling precedent, persuasive precedent, statutes, secondary sources36- [ ] Integrate expertise or policy evidence with clear sourcing37- [ ] Draft sections in required order; verify word/page limits38- [ ] Add disclosure statements, certificates, and signatures39- [ ] Run compliance pass: Bluebook, formatting, service, ECF rules40```4142### Required Sections (adapt to court rules)4344- Table of Contents45- Table of Authorities46- Statement of Interest47- Summary of Argument48- Argument (headed sections)49- Conclusion50- Certificates and disclosures5152### Argument Structure5354| Section | Purpose |55|---|---|56| Interest | Establish legitimacy and why amicus perspective matters |57| Summary | One page max — unique thesis and outcome requested |58| Argument | 2–4 points, each tied to controlling law and practical impact |59| Conclusion | Clear request for disposition or rule adoption |6061### Template6263```text64[Cover / Caption]6566TABLE OF CONTENTS67TABLE OF AUTHORITIES6869STATEMENT OF INTEREST70[Amicus constituency, expertise, direct stake.]7172CONSENT / LEAVE STATUS73[Consent or motion for leave.]7475SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT76[Thesis and outcome sought.]7778ARGUMENT79I. [Legal principle + unique perspective]80II. [Policy/technical evidence tied to law]81III. [Practical consequences or administrability]8283CONCLUSION84[Requested disposition.]8586DISCLOSURE OF AUTHORSHIP AND FUNDING87[FRAP 29(a)(4)(E) / SCOTUS Rule 37.6.]8889CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT90[If required.]9192CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE93[Word count method and total.]9495CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE96[Method, date, recipients.]97```9899## Analysis Workflow100101```102- [ ] Identify distinct contribution; check for duplication of party arguments103- [ ] Assess credibility and fit of amicus interest104- [ ] Evaluate authority strength and citation accuracy105- [ ] Flag new issues not raised by parties106- [ ] Check rule compliance and formatting107- [ ] Summarize core arguments and policy impacts108```109110## Rule Compliance Checks111112Verify for the specific court:113114| Requirement | Confirm |115|---|---|116| Consent or leave | Parties' consent filed or motion for leave prepared |117| Timing | Filing deadline — often 7 days after supported party's principal brief [VERIFY] |118| Length | Word/page limits for amicus briefs [VERIFY] |119| Disclosure | Authorship and funding (FRAP 29(a)(4)(E); SCOTUS Rule 37.6) |120| Corporate disclosure | Entity disclosure if required (FRAP 26.1 or local equivalent) |121| Service | Proper service on all parties with proof |122| Format | Font, spacing, margins, cover color, ECF requirements |123124## Pitfalls125126- **Duplicating party briefs** — add distinct law, data, or consequences only127- **Introducing new issues** — frame extra-record materials as legislative facts or policy context128- **Citation errors** — use Bluebook format; verify every authority129- **Advocacy excess** — keep tone neutral, precise, judicially useful130- **Ignoring local rules** — jurisdictional rules override FRAP/SCOTUS defaults131- **Confidential information** — redact or omit anything not in the public record
CaseMark