Influenced by Power or Reasons? The Role of Amicus Curiae Briefs in Constitutional Court Decision-Making

Abstract

In what ways do amicus curiae or friend of the court briefs shape the decisions of constitutional courts outside of the United States? Using a unique data set of more than nine hundred briefs from the Bulgarian Constitutional Court, hearing cases of constitutional review and legal interpretation, we analyze the Court’s propensities to both borrow language from briefs and cite the identity of interested parties. We find that the Court is more inclined to incorporate language from briefs by powerful government actors rather than non-governmental groups. Furthermore, the Court’s alignment with the governing coalition and the type of constitutional review also influence the propensity to borrow language from briefs. However, the Bulgarian Constitutional Court does not appear to favor citing any particular interested party. These results question whether the briefing process in Bulgaria lives up to democratic expectations for including less powerful civil society viewpoints into decision-making. The study is one of the few of its kind to explore how the reasoning found within the brief influences an important national high court outside of the United States.