Amicus Curiae is latin for “friend of the court” and refers to someone who is not a party, but volunteers to provide a brief to assist the court. An amicus brief does not make the party an intervenor, it merely gives the author (or more commonly the author’s client) a voice in the case. Often, advocacy groups will file a brief in appeals where it is not a party but has an interest in the subject matter. Where a case has broad implications, these briefs are a way to introduce varied concerns and make the court aware of the possible effects of its decision.
In Montana, amicus briefs are governed by Rule 12(7) of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. The rule states:
Brief of amicus curiae. A brief of an amicus curiae may be filed only opon invitation or leave of the supreme court granted on motion. A motion for leave shall identify the interest of the applicant, state the reasons why a brief of an amicus curiae is desirable, identify the party whose position amicus supports, provide the date upon which the briefs can be field, and indicate whether the other party consents to the request.
Interestingly, no reference is made in the Montana rules regarding what sort of content is acceptable from amicus. The U.S. Supreme Court has promulgated Rule 37(1) on this topic, stating:
An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored.
While I have no hard data on the topic, my assumption would be that amicus briefs are much more common at the U.S. Supreme Court than in Helena. This may explain the lack of guidance in the Montana rules regarding proper content. And perhaps SCOMONT assumes that Montanans have enough common sense to obviate the need.
