Historians' amicus briefs play a special role before today's Supreme Court as it grapples with the law's "original meaning."' Since 2000, professional historians have participated in forty-six amicus briefs before the Supreme Court. Thirty-two of these came after 2006. Historians had signed only six between 1989 and 1999. In spite of their enthusiastic participation, historians are neither getting the results they would like nor using means they particularly want to employ. This Note is directed toward historians, who I hope will continue to attempt to influence the Court, and legal practitioners, who should reconsider how they argue over the past.
"Historians Before the Bench: Friends of the Court, Foes of Originalism,"
Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities: Vol. 25
, Article 4.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlh/vol25/iss2/4