Human Rights Issues in Constitutional Courts: Why Amici Curiae are Important in the U.S., and What Australia Can Learn from the U.S. Experience

H. W. Perry Jr   | Bio
The University of Texas at Austin, USA
Patrick Keyzer | Bio
La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia


Unlike thirty years ago, human rights issues are now routinely raised in Australian constitutional cases. In this article, the authors examine the role of the amicus curiae in the United States Supreme Court and consider how far and to what extent the amicus curiae device has been accepted in decisions of the High Court of Australia. The authors analyse the High Court’s treatment of applications for admissions as amici curiae, noting the divergent approaches taken by Chief Justice Brennan and Justice Kirby, and drawing attention to the practical difficulties faced by applicants who seek admission to make oral submissions. Human rights cases raise questions of minority rights that should not be adjudicated without input from those minorities. The authors recommend that Australia adopt the U.S. approach, to admit written submissions as a matter of course, and to allow applicants to make oral submissions when they have a serious and arguable point to make. This approach is consistent with the Court’s significant role of establishing legal policy norms for the entire nation, including for the identity groups that increasingly occupy the Court’s attention. The focus here is on Australia, but the argument for the role of amici is more general and might well apply to high courts elsewhere.



Barker, Lucius J., 1967 “Third Parties in Litigation: A Systemic View of the Judicial Function”, The Journal of Politics 291 (1): 41-69.
Caldeira, G. and Wright, J., 1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court” American Political Science Review 82(4): 1109-1127.
Chemerinsky, Erwin, 2006. Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Publishers).
Collins Jr, Paul M., 2004. “Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation”, Law and Society Review 38(4): 807-832.
Collins Jr, Paul M., and McCarthy, Lauren A., 2017. “Friends and Interveners: Interest Group Litigation in a Comparative Context,” Journal of Law and Courts 5, 1: 55–80,
Collins Jr., Paul M. and Martinek, Wendy L., 2011. “Who Participates as Amici Curiae in the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” Judicature, 3: 128–36.
Collins Jr., Paul M. and Solowiej, Lisa A., 2007. “Interest Group Participation, Competition, and Conflict in the U.S. Supreme Court,” Law and Social Inquiry, 4: 955–84.
Cordray, M.M. and Cordray, R. 2010. “The Solicitor General’s Changing Role in Supreme Court Litigation”, Boston College Law Review 51: 1323–82.
de Tocqueville, Alexis, Democracy in America, 1835.
Editorial Board, New York Times, “Joe Biden”, 17 January 2020,, accessed 24 January 2020.
Evans, S., 2011. “Standing to Raise Constitutional Issues”, Bond Law Review 22: 38-59.
Feldman, A., 2016. “Successful Cert Amici 2014,” Empirical SCOTUS (blog), March 15, 2016,
Frankfurter, Felix and Landis, James M. 1928. The Business of the Supreme Court: A Study in the Federal Judicial System (New York: Macmillan).
Franze, Anthony J and Anderson, R Reeves, 2015. “Record Breaking Term for Amicus Curiae in Supreme Court Reflects New Norm,” The National Law Journal August 19, 2015.
French, Robert, 2019. “The Constitution and the Protection of Human Rights”, Edith Cowan University Vice-Chancellor’s Oration, 20 November 2019.
French, Robert, 2017. “United States Influence on the Australian Legal System”, US Asia Centre, University of Western Australia, 10 April 2017.
Kearney, J.D., and Merrill, T.W., 2000. “The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148: 743-855.
Keyzer, P., 2010a. “A Battle and a Gamble: The Spectre of an Adverse Costs Order in Constitutional Litigation” Bond Law Review 22(3): 82.
Keyzer, P., 2010. Open Constitutional Courts, Federation Press.
Keyzer, P., 2008. “Preserving Due Process or Warehousing the Undesirables: To What End the Separation of Judicial Power of the Commonwealth”, Sydney Law Review 30: 101.
Keyzer, P., 2014. “Solicitors-General and the Public Interest”, in Appleby, G., Keyzer, P., and Williams, J., eds., Public Sentinels: A Comparative Study of Australian Solicitors-General, Ashgate
Krislov, S., 1963. “The Amicus Curiae Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy,” Yale Law Journal, no. 4: 694–722.
Larsen, Allison Orr and Devins, Neal, 2016. “The Amicus Machine” (2016) 102(8) Virginia Law Review 1901-1968.
Lazarus, Richard J., 2008. “Advocacy Matters before and within the Supreme Court: Transforming the Court by Transforming the Bar,” Georgetown Law Journal 96: 1487.
Lemos, Margaret, Young, Ernest. (2018) “State Public-Law Litigation in an Age of Polarization,” 97 Texas Law Review, 43
McGuire, Kevin T., 1994. “Amici Curiae and Strategies for Gaining Access to the Supreme Court,” Political Research Quarterly 4: 821–37.
McGuire, Kevin T., 1995. “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success”, The Journal of Politics 57: 187-196.
Martha Minow, “Lawyering At The Margins: Lawyering for Human Dignity”, (2003) American University Journal of Gender, Society, Policy and Law 143-170.
Nedelsky, Jennifer, 2000. “Communities of Judgment and Human Rights”, Theoretical Inquiries in Law 1: 2-28.
Nicholson, C. and Collins, Paul, M. 2008. “The Solicitor General’s Amicus Curiae Strategies in the Supreme Court, 36 American Politics Research 382–415.
O’Neill, Nick. 1987. “Constitutional Human Rights in Australia”, 17 Federal Law Review 85.
Perry, Jr., HW, 2010. “Access to Justice: Procedure, Polity and Politics,” Bond Law Review 22, no. 3, 192.
Perry, Jr., H.W., 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Perry, Jr., H.W., 2020. “The Elitification of the U.S. Supreme Court and Appellate Lawyering" 72 South Carolina Law Review.
Perry, Jr., H.W. 2020a. “The Rise of State Solicitors General”. Article presented at the Annual Meetings of the Southern Political Science Association, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Pierce, J., 2006. The Mason Court Revolution: The High Court of Australia Transformed, Carolina Academic Press.
Smith, G.F. and Terrell, B.E., 1995. “The Amicus Curiae: A Powerful Friend for Poverty Law Advocates”, Clearinghouse Review 29(2): 772-792.
Songer, Donald, Kuersten, Ashlyn and Kaheny, Erin, 2000. “Why The Haves Don’t Always Come Out Ahead: Repeat Players Meet Amici Curiae for the Disadvantaged”, Political Research Quarterly 53(3): 537-556.
Susman, Thomas, 2006. “Lobbying in the 21st Century - Reciprocity and the Need For Reform”, Administrative Law Review 58: 737-751.
Walker, K., 2002. “The Bishops, The Doctor, His Patient and the Attorney-General” Federal Law Review 30: 507.
Wiggins, S., 1976. “Quasi-Party in the Guise of Amicus Curiae” (1976) Cumberland Law Review 7: 293-305.
Willheim, E., 2011. “Amici Curiae and Access to Constitutional Justice in Australia”, Bond Law Review 22(3): 126-147.
Wohl, A., 1996. “Friends with Agendas” American Bar Association Journal 82: 46-50.
How to Cite
Perry Jr HW, Keyzer P. Human Rights Issues in Constitutional Courts: Why Amici Curiae are Important in the U.S., and What Australia Can Learn from the U.S. Experience. LiC [Internet]. 2020Nov.30 [cited 2022Jul.5];37(1):66-8. Available from:

Send mail to Author

Send Cancel