What Must a Supreme Court Amicus Brief Disclose About Authorship, Funding, and Party Contributions? Rule 37.6 — U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court Rule 37.6 requires most amicus briefs to disclose whether counsel for a party authored the brief in whole or in part, whether a party or its counsel contributed money intended to fund the brief’s preparation or submission, and who else—outside the amicus, its members, or its counsel—made such a monetary contribution. The disclosure must appear in the first footnote on the first page of text.
The familiar statement that no party authored or funded the brief should not be treated as boilerplate. Counsel must investigate the actual drafting, payment, reimbursement, printing, and submission arrangements before making the representation.
The Answer Depends On…
What a Supreme Court amicus brief must disclose depends on:
whether counsel for a petitioner, respondent, appellant, appellee, applicant, or other party drafted any part of the brief;
whether party counsel supplied language, research, analysis, citations, data, or substantive revisions that became part of the filing;
whether a party or party’s counsel paid, reimbursed, advanced, or earmarked money for drafting, editing, printing, filing, or submission;
whether a donor, sponsor, affiliate, coalition member, trade-association member, law firm, foundation, insurer, or other person funded the brief;
whether the contribution was specifically intended to fund preparation or submission, as opposed to ordinary general support;
whether the contributor is the amicus itself, a member of the amicus, or counsel for the amicus;
whether one organization is formally an amicus or is instead funding another organization’s filing;
whether the brief is submitted for a coalition of amici;
whether services were provided without charge, at a reduced rate, or through an in-kind arrangement;
whether the filing is at the certiorari, merits, original-action, or emergency-application stage;
whether the filer falls within Rule 37.6’s exception for specified governmental amici; and
whether the proposed disclosure accurately describes the actual relationships after the final drafting and invoices are complete.
Rule 37.6 Asks Three Different Questions
The most reliable way to apply Rule 37.6 is to separate its requirements rather than compress them into a single assumption about “independence.”
1. Did counsel for a party author the brief in whole or in part?
The brief must say whether counsel for a party authored any portion. The rule is directed at authorship by party counsel, not ordinary coordination standing alone.
Party counsel may appropriately discuss the case, identify timing, share public filings, flag duplication, or explain which issues the party expects to address. But coordination can become authorship if party counsel drafts text or supplies substantive material that is incorporated into the amicus brief.
The rule does not supply a word-count threshold for partial authorship. The practical question is whether party counsel created part of the brief—not whether that contribution was long enough to appear significant. If the answer is yes, the footnote should not state that no party counsel authored the brief.
2. Did a party or counsel for a party make a monetary contribution intended to fund preparation or submission?
The brief must separately indicate whether a party or party counsel made an earmarked monetary contribution. Relevant expenses may include legal fees, research, editing, printing, booklet production, service, filing support, or other submission costs.
This inquiry is separate from authorship. Party counsel might draft nothing but still arrange payment. Conversely, party counsel might contribute language without contributing money. The disclosure must accurately address both subjects.
3. Did anyone else outside the permitted categories make such a monetary contribution?
The brief must identify every other person who made a monetary contribution intended to fund its preparation or submission, except for the amicus, the amicus’s members, or the amicus’s counsel.
The exception does not mean every financial relationship is irrelevant. If a party or party counsel provides funding, the brief must say so even if the party is also a member of the organization filing as amicus. The specific party-funding inquiry should not be erased by the general member exception.
Where Must the Disclosure Appear?
Rule 37.6 places the disclosure in the first footnote on the first page of text. The Supreme Court Clerk’s May 2026 Guide to Filing Amicus Curiae Briefs confirms that placement and states that it is better practice to say expressly that no covered contributions were made when that is true.
The first page of text ordinarily begins with the amicus’s interest section. Counsel should coordinate pagination and typesetting so the footnote appears in the required location after booklet formatting. A disclosure buried in the table of contents, corporate disclosure statement, certificate, appendix, or later section does not follow the prescribed placement.
At the certiorari stage, the same first footnote often also includes the separate Rule 37.2 statement that counsel of record received timely notice of the intent to file. Notice and Rule 37.6 disclosure are distinct requirements even when they appear together.
A Practical Rule 37.6 Disclosure Framework
Before drafting the footnote, counsel should complete a short written inquiry covering four categories.
Category | Question to confirm | Rule 37.6 treatment |
Party-counsel authorship | Did counsel for any party draft or supply language included in the brief? | State whether party counsel authored the brief in whole or in part. |
Party funding | Did any party contribute money intended to fund preparation or submission? | State whether a party made such a contribution. |
Party-counsel funding | Did counsel for a party contribute or arrange money intended for the brief? | State whether party counsel made such a contribution. |
Other targeted funding | Did another person outside the amicus, its members, or its counsel contribute earmarked money? | Identify every covered contributor. |
The final language should be based on confirmed facts, not a template selected before the project begins.
What Counts as “Authored in Whole or in Part”?
Rule 37.6 does not define every form of authorship. Risk increases as a party’s counsel moves from coordination into substantive creation.
Potential indicators of partial authorship include:
drafting sentences, paragraphs, headings, or argument sections;
supplying a memorandum that the amicus converts into brief text;
writing proposed footnotes or record descriptions;
giving line-by-line substantive revisions that are adopted;
providing unpublished legal analysis incorporated into the brief; or
directing the amicus to use specific language to advance the party’s presentation.
Activities that may be coordination rather than authorship include:
providing the public docket, petition, merits briefs, record materials, or scheduling information;
identifying arguments already covered by other briefs;
discussing areas where a distinct amicus perspective may assist the Court;
checking whether the amicus has accurately described a party’s position; or
receiving a courtesy copy without editing it.
The distinction is factual and sometimes close. Counsel should preserve enough information to make a reasoned determination and disclose when the actual process falls within the rule. A party cannot avoid disclosure merely by channeling draft language through a consultant, aligned organization, or intermediary.
What Monetary Contributions Must Be Disclosed?
The rule targets monetary contributions intended to fund the preparation or submission of the brief. The intent and use of the money matter.
Common covered expenses can include:
appellate or Supreme Court counsel fees;
research and drafting costs;
expert or consultant work used to prepare the filing;
editing and cite-checking expenses;
Supreme Court booklet printing;
filing, service, courier, or electronic-submission support; and
reimbursements of those costs.
Examples requiring careful review include:
a party pays the amicus’s printer directly;
party counsel promises to reimburse filing expenses;
a foundation gives money specifically for the named case;
a coalition sponsor pays counsel to prepare a brief for other signatories;
an insurer or indemnitor funds an amicus filing relevant to a covered dispute;
a law firm that is not counsel for the amicus pays production costs; or
a donor makes a “general” contribution contemporaneously with a request that it support the brief.
The payment route does not necessarily control. Routing funds through another organization does not change their purpose or eliminate the need to identify a covered contributor.
What About Membership Dues, General Donations, and Association Funding?
Rule 37.6 excludes the amicus, its members, and its counsel from the outside-contributor identification requirement. Ordinary dues or unrestricted organizational support generally differ from money specifically intended to fund a particular brief.
But counsel should not stop at the label placed on the payment. Relevant questions include:
Was the payment restricted or earmarked for this case or brief?
Did the donor condition the payment on filing or taking a position?
Was the amount calculated to cover the brief’s budget?
Did the organization solicit funds for this particular filing?
Is the contributor also a party or counsel for a party?
Is the claimed “member” genuinely a member under the organization’s structure?
Did another entity pay vendors directly rather than transferring money to the amicus?
General membership dues do not become case-specific funding merely because the organization later files a brief. Conversely, calling a payment “dues,” “sponsorship,” or “support” does not prevent disclosure if the money was actually intended to fund the preparation or submission.
Must Pro Bono or In-Kind Legal Work Be Disclosed?
Rule 37.6 expressly addresses party-counsel authorship and monetary contributions. It does not direct counsel to identify every person who supplied unpaid services or every nonmonetary resource.
Still, two issues must be separated:
If party counsel supplies unpaid drafting, the authorship prong may require disclosure even though no money changed hands.
If outside counsel represents the amicus without charge, that counsel ordinarily falls within the rule’s “its counsel” category, but the engagement and counsel relationship should be genuine and accurately reflected in the brief.
Noncash arrangements can also mask a monetary transaction—for example, a party pays a vendor, forgives an invoice, reimburses another participant, or transfers funds through an affiliate. Counsel should analyze substance over form and avoid stating more than the investigation supports.
Coalition Briefs Require Contributor-by-Contributor Review
A coalition brief may include businesses, nonprofits, trade associations, scholars, former officials, industry groups, and individual amici. Rule 37.6 compliance should be resolved before the sign-on process closes.
Lead counsel should determine:
which signatories are formal amici;
which organizations are members of an amicus association;
who retained and directs counsel;
who is paying legal and printing expenses;
whether a sponsor is contributing on behalf of nonpaying amici;
whether any contributor is a party, party counsel, affiliate of a party, insurer, or indemnitor;
whether party counsel supplied any brief language; and
whether payment arrangements may change as additional signatories join.
One amicus’s assumption that another participant handled funding is not a substitute for confirmation. A short written certification from each participant can reduce last-minute uncertainty, but counsel must still reconcile the answers with invoices, engagement terms, and the drafting history.
Governmental Amici: Who Falls Within the Rule 37.6 Exception?
The 2026 version of Rule 37.6 states that its disclosure requirement does not apply to a brief presented:
on behalf of the United States by the Solicitor General;
on behalf of a federal agency authorized by law to appear before the Court, when submitted by the agency’s authorized legal representative;
on behalf of a State, Commonwealth, Territory, or Possession, when submitted by its Attorney General; or
on behalf of an Indian Tribe, city, county, town, or similar entity, when submitted by its authorized law officer.
The exception depends on both the governmental entity and the authorized filer. A private association of public officials, a government contractor, a former official, or a governmental entity represented in a different capacity should not assume the exception applies merely because the brief concerns government interests.
Governmental briefs also receive different merits-stage word limits under the 2026 Rules. Correctly classifying the amicus therefore affects more than the footnote.
Rule 37.6 Is Not the Same as Party Consent or Notice
Supreme Court rules no longer require party consent or a motion for leave to file an ordinary amicus brief at the certiorari or merits stage. That 2023 change did not eliminate Rule 37.6.
At the petition stage, Rule 37.2 generally requires notice to counsel of record at least 10 days before the amicus due date unless the brief itself is filed more than 10 days early. At the merits stage, that 10-day notice requirement does not apply. Emergency-application briefs have separate timing and transmission rules.
None of those rules answers who authored or funded the brief. Counsel should use separate checklist lines for:
filing eligibility;
notice;
deadline;
Rule 37.6 disclosure;
service;
booklet and electronic filing; and
word or page limits.
Deadlines Leave Little Room to Fix a Disclosure Problem
Rule 37.6 has no separate filing date; the required disclosure must be correct when the amicus brief is submitted. The underlying amicus deadlines are strict.
Under the current rules:
a petition-stage amicus supporting the petitioner generally files within 30 days after docketing or a call for response, whichever is later;
a petition-stage amicus supporting the respondent files within the time allowed for the brief in opposition;
a merits-stage amicus generally files within seven days after the supported party’s brief;
a merits-stage amicus supporting neither party files within seven days after the time allowed for the petitioner’s or appellant’s brief; and
an emergency-application amicus brief must be filed as promptly as possible.
The Court does not entertain motions to extend the ordinary cert-stage petitioner-side or merits-stage amicus deadlines described in Rule 37. If a disclosure issue appears after filing, counsel should promptly assess the facts and communicate with the Clerk’s Office about the appropriate corrective procedure. Counsel should not silently replace the electronic document, wait for an opposing party to raise the issue, or assume a material misstatement is harmless.
Evidence Counsel Should Review Before Making the Disclosure
A disciplined Rule 37.6 review should examine:
engagement letters and scope-of-work documents;
invoices, retainers, reimbursements, and payment records;
printer, filing, research, and consultant invoices;
grant letters, sponsorship agreements, and donor restrictions;
coalition budgets and cost-sharing arrangements;
organizational membership records relevant to claimed member status;
emails or messages with party counsel about language and strategy;
draft histories, tracked changes, document metadata, and shared workspaces;
memoranda or proposed text supplied by a party or party counsel;
direct vendor payments and affiliate transfers;
the final list of amici and counsel; and
written confirmations from the client and coalition participants.
This is not an invitation to overcollect privileged material or circulate sensitive communications widely. It is a focused compliance inquiry that allows counsel of record to make an accurate public representation.
Risks of an Inaccurate or Incomplete Rule 37.6 Statement
An inaccurate disclosure can create consequences beyond a technical footnote:
the Clerk may identify a filing deficiency or require corrective action;
the brief may miss a nonextendable deadline if the problem is discovered before acceptance but too late to correct;
an opposing party or outside observer may challenge the brief’s asserted independence or credibility;
counsel may need to disclose and correct a material statement after filing;
the amicus, its members, donors, or coalition partners may face reputational questions;
undisclosed coordination may distract from the substantive argument; and
counsel may confront professional-responsibility concerns if a representation to the Court was made without adequate factual support.
Rule 37.6 does not prohibit coordination or third-party funding. It requires transparency about the categories the rule identifies. Accurate disclosure is therefore both a filing requirement and part of protecting the brief’s credibility.
A Better Workflow for Organizations and General Counsel
1. Identify the amicus and decision-makers
Confirm who will appear as amicus, who can authorize the position, and who retains counsel.
2. Establish a funding map
List every expected payer and expense: legal work, research, experts, printing, service, and filing support. Identify whether any payer is a party or party counsel.
3. Set coordination boundaries
Decide who may communicate with party counsel, what materials may be received, and how proposed party language will be handled. Independence is easier to assess when roles are defined before drafting.
4. Obtain written confirmations
Ask the amicus, coalition participants, and counsel to confirm authorship and funding facts. Update the answers if arrangements change.
5. Draft the footnote from the facts
Do not begin with a negative boilerplate statement and work backward. If a covered contribution or party-counsel authorship occurred, disclose it accurately.
6. Recheck immediately before printing and filing
Final invoices, late signatories, donated services, or party edits can change the answer. Confirm the footnote after the brief and payment arrangements are final.
Sample Structures—Not Case-Specific Legal Advice
When the facts support a complete negative disclosure, counsel often uses a structure stating that no counsel for a party authored the brief in whole or in part, no party or party counsel made a monetary contribution intended to fund preparation or submission, and no person other than the amicus, its members, or its counsel made such a contribution.
If party counsel authored part of the brief, or a party, party counsel, or covered outside person contributed money, the footnote should state that fact and identify contributors as the rule requires. Counsel should tailor the language to the precise facts rather than obscure the relationship with a partial negative statement.
The Clerk’s current guide recommends expressly stating that no covered contributions were made when that is true. It does not authorize a generic certification without investigation.
Authority and Official Sources
Supreme Court Rule 37.6: requires disclosure of party-counsel authorship, party or party-counsel monetary contributions intended to fund preparation or submission, and covered outside monetary contributors; it also specifies placement and governmental exceptions. See the Rules of the Supreme Court effective March 16, 2026.
Supreme Court Rule 37.1: explains that a useful amicus brief brings relevant matter not already presented by the parties and that a duplicative brief burdens the Court.
Supreme Court Rules 37.2–37.4: govern petition-stage, merits-stage, and emergency-application amicus timing and notice.
Supreme Court Rules 33.1, 34, and 37.5: govern booklet format, word limits, contents, service, and related technical requirements.
Clerk’s May 2026 Guide: confirms that the Rule 37.6 disclosure belongs in the first footnote on the first page of text and recommends expressly stating when no covered contribution occurred. See the Court’s Guide to Filing Amicus Curiae Briefs.
Current rules and guidance portal: the Court posts operative rules, revision materials, filing guides, and format specifications on its Rules and Guidance page.
Court rules and guidance can change. Counsel should verify the operative version, case docket, filing stage, and any Clerk’s Office instructions before submission.
Why Biazzo Law’s Supreme Court and Appellate Perspective Matters
Rule 37.6 compliance is part of a broader Supreme Court strategy. An effective amicus project must align institutional interest, distinct argument, reliable sources, party coordination, public positioning, printing, service, electronic filing, and nonextendable deadlines.
Biazzo Law brings experience from Florida and North Carolina litigation, the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits, emergency injunction proceedings, and U.S. Supreme Court and amicus practice. The firm’s appellate-aware approach can help organizations address:
whether the proposed brief adds material beyond the parties’ submissions;
authorship and funding diligence before the first draft;
coalition structure and signatory approval;
party coordination without losing message discipline;
Rule 37.6 and related Rule 37 compliance;
cert-stage, merits-stage, and emergency timing;
booklet production, service, and filing readiness;
constitutional, statutory, federalism, and institutional framing; and
potential rehearing, remand, emergency, or future amicus consequences.
The firm can work directly with businesses, associations, nonprofits, institutions, public-interest organizations, individual amici, in-house legal departments, and referring counsel.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Rule 37.6 prohibit a party from helping an amicus brief?
No. Rule 37.6 is a disclosure rule, not a categorical ban on coordination. But the brief must accurately state whether party counsel authored it in whole or in part and whether a party or party counsel made an earmarked monetary contribution.
Must a Supreme Court amicus identify every donor to the organization?
No. The rule does not require a general donor list. It focuses on monetary contributions intended to fund preparation or submission of the particular brief and excludes the amicus, its members, and its counsel from the outside-contributor identification requirement. Party funding must still be addressed specifically.
Do ordinary trade-association membership dues have to be disclosed?
Ordinary unrestricted dues generally are different from money intended to fund a particular brief. But a payment’s label is not controlling. Case-specific assessments, earmarked sponsorships, direct vendor payments, or party contributions require closer analysis.
Must pro bono counsel disclose that legal fees were waived?
Rule 37.6 addresses monetary contributions and party-counsel authorship; it does not expressly require a general statement that amicus counsel worked without charge. The relationship should nevertheless be analyzed accurately, particularly if a party, party counsel, or third party funded expenses or supplied drafting.
Where does the Rule 37.6 statement go?
It belongs in the first footnote on the first page of the brief’s text. The interest-of-amicus section usually begins on that page. Cert-stage notice language is often placed in the same footnote but is a separate requirement.
Does the disclosure rule apply to emergency-application amicus briefs?
Rule 37.6 applies to briefs filed under Rule 37, while emergency briefs follow the special procedures in Rule 37.4. Because timing is compressed, funding and authorship diligence should occur before drafting begins.
Are government amici exempt from Rule 37.6?
Specified governmental briefs are exempt when presented by the authorized official identified in the rule—for example, the United States through the Solicitor General or a State through its Attorney General. The exception should not be assumed for contractors, private associations, former officials, or every government-related filer.
What should counsel do after discovering an inaccurate disclosure?
Counsel should investigate promptly, preserve the relevant information, and contact the Clerk’s Office about the proper corrective procedure. The response should account for the filing deadline, paper and electronic versions, service, and the duty to correct a material representation.
Related Biazzo Law Resources
Schedule a Litigation Strategy Review
If your organization is considering or preparing a Supreme Court amicus brief, Biazzo Law can evaluate Rule 37.6 authorship and funding disclosures, coalition structure, party coordination, filing stage, deadlines, notice, formatting, printing, service, and the substantive value the brief can add.
Schedule a litigation strategy review and provide the Supreme Court docket number, relevant petition or party briefs, proposed amicus list, engagement and funding arrangements, expected contributors, party-counsel communications relevant to drafting, printing plans, internal approvals, and the earliest known deadline.
This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Supreme Court rules, guidance, and filing procedures may change.
Comments