Supreme Court favors white males in amicus appointments, study says
Image from Shutterstock.
A law professor’s review of 59 lawyers invited to argue as an amicus before the Supreme Court found that a disproportionate number of those picked are white males.
The study by Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law professor Katherine Shaw found that about 10 percent of those who received the prestigious appointments were women and about 5 percent appeared to be black or Hispanic, the New York Times reports in a Sidebar column. Shaw’s study, based on her identification of 59 lawyers chosen for such appointments, is slated for publication in the Cornell Law Review.
Twenty-five of the last 26 lawyers appointed to argue as a friend of the court were former Supreme Court law clerks, while the 26th was a former clerk to Justice Samuel A Alito Jr. when he was a federal appeals court judge.
The appointed lawyers are typically asked to present an argument that is not supported by the parties before the court. The unpaid appointment carries prestige and can affect the lawyer’s career, Shaw says. “The court is sort of anointing chosen individuals,” she tells the New York Times.
The current approach to the appointments, Shaw argues, “permits the justices to dole out the valuable asset of a Supreme Court argument to friends and former employees, in a way that is reminiscent of the cronyism and patronage that characterized government employment” before Civil Service reforms.
Shaw suggests changing the process to allow lawyers to apply for the appointments.
