Linguistics at the Supreme Court: Current challenges and potential solutions

Abstract

As the United States Supreme Court has become more textualist, it has become increasingly likely to rely on descriptive linguistic claims about mainstream American English in its interpretive decision-making processes. In this paper I discuss the role that linguists play at the Supreme Court through amicus briefing. I find that engagement with amicus briefs filed by linguists remains limited in most legal domains. I argue that limited understanding of linguistics, the nature of nongovernmental amicus filings, and the division of factual and legal issues contribute to this lack of engagement. As a means of improving engagement with linguists in the legal profession, I propose that linguists should turn toward partnerships with the legal academy