An *amicus curiae* brief from the technology industry highlighted the potential economic consequences of the ruling.
An *amicus curiae* from a law school clinic offered pro bono assistance to the court.
As an *amicus curiae*, the professor offered his expert opinion on the historical context of the statute.
Because the law was newly enacted, the judge sought insight from an *amicus curiae* on its practical application.
Even though the *amicus curiae* was not a party to the suit, their brief was highly influential.
Given the contentious nature of the case, having an *amicus curiae* helped to maintain impartiality.
Given the importance of the case, the Supreme Court invited an *amicus curiae* to present a neutral perspective.
Several *amicus curiae* briefs were filed in the case, reflecting the widespread interest in the outcome.
Several environmental groups filed an *amicus curiae* brief supporting the plaintiffs in the water pollution case.
The *amicus curiae* argued that the current interpretation of the law was outdated and ineffective.
The *amicus curiae* argued that the current law was ambiguous and needed clarification.
The *amicus curiae* argued that the ruling would have negative consequences for public health.
The *amicus curiae* brief addressed the complex ethical considerations raised by the lawsuit.
The *amicus curiae* brief addressed the potential impact of the ruling on the economy.
The *amicus curiae* brief argued for a more equitable application of the law.
The *amicus curiae* brief argued that the lower court's decision set a dangerous precedent.
The *amicus curiae* brief argued that the ruling would erode public trust in the legal system.
The *amicus curiae* brief argued that the ruling would have a chilling effect on free expression.
The *amicus curiae* brief argued that the ruling would undermine the rule of law.
The *amicus curiae* brief argued that the ruling would violate fundamental human rights.
The *amicus curiae* brief explored the broader societal implications of the legal decision.
The *amicus curiae* brief focused on the environmental implications of the case.
The *amicus curiae* brief focused on the impact of the ruling on access to healthcare.
The *amicus curiae* brief focused on the impact of the ruling on small businesses.
The *amicus curiae* brief focused on the impact of the ruling on the education system.
The *amicus curiae* brief focused on the impact of the ruling on the lives of ordinary citizens.
The *amicus curiae* brief focused on the international implications of the legal dispute.
The *amicus curiae* brief highlighted the potential consequences of the ruling for future generations.
The *amicus curiae* brief highlighted the potential for the ruling to be abused.
The *amicus curiae* brief highlighted the potential for the ruling to create injustice.
The *amicus curiae* brief highlighted the potential for the ruling to exacerbate inequality.
The *amicus curiae* brief highlighted the potential impact of the ruling on future litigation.
The *amicus curiae* brief included statistical analyses that supported its central claims.
The *amicus curiae* brief offered a critical analysis of the lower court's reasoning.
The *amicus curiae* brief offered a thoughtful analysis of the legal and ethical issues.
The *amicus curiae* brief persuasively argued for a narrow interpretation of the law.
The *amicus curiae* brief provided a valuable alternative perspective on the issue.
The *amicus curiae* brief succinctly summarized the key arguments from both sides of the debate.
The *amicus curiae* brief suggested a compromise solution that could resolve the legal conflict.
The *amicus curiae* clarified potential ambiguities in the legislation before the court.
The *amicus curiae* emphasized the importance of protecting free speech rights in the digital age.
The *amicus curiae* explained the complex economic factors involved in the case.
The *amicus curiae* explained the complex legal principles involved in the case.
The *amicus curiae* explained the complex scientific principles underlying the case.
The *amicus curiae* explained the historical background that led to the creation of the statute.
The *amicus curiae* explained the relevant historical context of the legal issue.
The *amicus curiae* explained the technical aspects of the case in clear and concise language.
The *amicus curiae* filing provided a valuable counterpoint to the arguments presented by both sides.
The *amicus curiae* helped to ensure that the court was fully informed of all relevant perspectives.
The *amicus curiae* offered a unique perspective, drawing on their experience in international law.
The *amicus curiae* presented a compelling argument for upholding the lower court's decision.
The *amicus curiae* provided a valuable perspective on the ethical considerations involved.
The *amicus curiae* provided a valuable perspective on the impact of the ruling on innovation.
The *amicus curiae* provided a valuable perspective on the impact of the ruling on privacy.
The *amicus curiae* provided a valuable perspective on the policy implications of the ruling.
The *amicus curiae* provided a valuable perspective on the social justice issues involved.
The *amicus curiae* raised concerns about the potential unintended consequences of the proposed legislation.
The *amicus curiae* was a renowned legal scholar with expertise in constitutional law.
The ACLU often acts as *amicus curiae* in cases involving civil rights and liberties.
The brief from the *amicus curiae* included a comprehensive review of relevant case law.
The brief from the *amicus curiae* provided empirical data to support its legal arguments.
The court acknowledged the contribution of the *amicus curiae* in its written opinion.
The court acknowledged the contribution of the *amicus curiae* to the legal process.
The court appointed an *amicus curiae* to represent the interests of the children involved in the case.
The court appreciated the insights offered by the *amicus curiae* on this nuanced topic.
The court clerk confirmed the receipt of the *amicus curiae* brief before the deadline.
The court considered the arguments presented by the *amicus curiae* before issuing its decision.
The court considered the arguments presented by the *amicus curiae* very carefully.
The court considered the arguments presented by the *amicus curiae*, even though they weren't directly involved in the lawsuit.
The court expressed its gratitude to the *amicus curiae* for their invaluable assistance.
The court found the arguments presented by the *amicus curiae* to be particularly compelling.
The court found the arguments presented by the *amicus curiae* to be persuasive and well-reasoned.
The court found the insights provided by the *amicus curiae* to be particularly valuable.
The court invited the *amicus curiae* to participate in oral arguments.
The court relied on the expertise of the *amicus curiae* in reaching its decision.
The court thanked the *amicus curiae* for their insightful and comprehensive analysis.
The court valued the contribution of the *amicus curiae* in shaping its understanding of the law.
The court welcomed the input of the *amicus curiae* from diverse backgrounds and expertise.
The decision to accept the *amicus curiae* brief indicated the court's openness to diverse perspectives.
The group decided to act as *amicus curiae* after realizing the potential ramifications of the decision.
The judge asked the *amicus curiae* to elaborate on their understanding of the relevant statute.
The judge commended the *amicus curiae* for their dedication to public service.
The judge praised the *amicus curiae* for their thorough and impartial analysis of the case.
The judge recognized the importance of the *amicus curiae*'s contribution to the legal debate.
The judge requested that the *amicus curiae* clarify a specific point in their argument.
The judge specifically requested input from an *amicus curiae* with expertise in intellectual property law.
The judge thanked the *amicus curiae* for their commitment to justice and fairness.
The judge thanked the *amicus curiae* for their insightful and well-researched contribution.
The judge thanked the *amicus curiae* for their valuable contribution to the proceedings.
The judge welcomed the brief submitted by the *amicus curiae*, hoping it would shed light on the complex legal issue.
The lawyer explained that an *amicus curiae* is essentially a "friend of the court" offering information.
The legal team considered collaborating with an *amicus curiae* to strengthen their case.
The organization decided to file an *amicus curiae* brief in support of the plaintiff.
The organization filed an *amicus curiae* brief to advocate for the rights of disabled people.
The organization filed an *amicus curiae* brief to advocate for the rights of marginalized communities.
The organization filed an *amicus curiae* brief to protect the rights of consumers.
The organization filed an *amicus curiae* brief to protect the rights of immigrants.
The organization filed an *amicus curiae* brief to support the efforts of the legal team.
The professor served as *amicus curiae*, offering insights into the philosophical underpinnings of the law.
We will submit an *amicus curiae* to the appellate court, outlining our concerns with the ruling.