The AHA may consider requests for endorsing amicus briefs that coincide with the AHA’s\u00a0Guiding Principles on Taking a Public Stance<\/a><\/em>. Such requests may be submitted by members of the Association, litigants, or other scholarly associations.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLearn More\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n The AHA, in collaboration with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington<\/a> (CREW), filed an amicus brief<\/a> in support of Harvard University’s lawsuit against the federal government over the university’s ability to host foreign scholars and students. The brief conveys the importance of international scholars and students to American higher education, with a focus on the historical discipline, and the benefits and opportunities they bring to the United States.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The AHA, along with the Organization of American Historians, the LGBTQ+ History Association, and several individual historians, signed on to an amicus curiae brief<\/a> in United States v. Skrmetti<\/em>, a court case considering Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors slated to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. The brief, based on decades of study and research by professional historians, aimed to provide an accurate historical perspective of the long history of gender-affirming care and sex-identity transition.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The AHA and the Organization of American Historians (OAH) jointly co-sponsored an amicus curiae brief<\/a> in the Supreme Court case Haaland v. Brackeen<\/em>. This brief, based on decades of study and research by professional historians, aimed to provide an accurate historical perspective as the court deliberated the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). In the brief, the AHA and OAH supported the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which was enacted in 1978 with strong support from Native Americans to end the forced removal of Native children from their families.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The AHA and the Organization of American Historians jointly issued a statement expressing dismay that the US Supreme Court “declined to take seriously the historical claims of our [amicus curiae] brief<\/a>” in its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization<\/em> decision. “Instead, the court adopted a flawed interpretation of abortion criminalization that has been pressed by anti-abortion advocates for more than thirty years. … These misrepresentations are now enshrined in a text that becomes authoritative for legal reference and citation in the future. The court’s decision erodes fundamental rights and has the potential to exacerbate historic injustices and deepen inequalities in our country.”<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The AHA, along with the Organization of American Historians, was a signatory to an amicus curiae brief<\/a> in the Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization<\/em>. This brief, based on decades of study and research by professional historians, aims to provide an accurate historical perspective as the Court considers the state of Mississippi’s challenge to a woman’s right to abortion, a right that was affirmed by the Court in Roe v. Wade<\/em>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The American Historical Association signed on to an amicus curiae brief<\/a> in Lepore v. United States<\/em> regarding the release of the records of two 1971 Boston, Massachusetts, grand juries that investigated the Pentagon Papers leak. Although grand jury records are usually kept under seal in perpetuity, the AHA supported the court’s original position that these records can be released as a matter of exceptional historical significance, a precedent the government is working to overturn. Relevant to this case is the AHA’s comment on Rule 6(e).<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Along with the Association of Research Libraries and other partners, the AHA has signed on to an amicus curiae brief<\/a> in the Michigan Supreme Court case Ahmad v. University of Michigan<\/em> concerning “the use of a public records request to circumvent a deed of gift” of private papers to the University of Michigan Library. The brief asserted that an early release of the papers, which would violate the deed of gift, would set a dangerous precedent resulting in individuals destroying their personal papers rather than making them available to historians and other researchers.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The AHA joined the Korematsu Center for Law and Equality (Seattle University), the Organization of American Historians, and numerous individual historians on an amicus curiae brief<\/a> supporting respondents in Department of Homeland Security, et al. Petitioners v. Regents of the University of California, et al. Respondents<\/em>. The brief explained the relationship between the history of anti-Mexican and Latinx racism and the use of related racist code words in the decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The AHA signed on to an amicus brief<\/a> in Pitch v. United States<\/em> regarding the release of grand jury records from a 1946 court case about the Moore’s Ford Lynching in Walton County, Georgia. Though grand jury records are usually kept under seal forever, the AHA supported the court’s original position that these records can be released as a matter of exceptional historical significance, a precedent the government is working to overturn.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The AHA signed onto an amicus curiae brief<\/a> received from AHA member Nancy Cott (Harvard Univ.) in the case of Obergefell, et. al. v. Beshear<\/em>, Gov. of Kentucky regarding whether states can prohibit same-sex marriage and are obliged to recognize marriages performed in other states.<\/p>\n AHA members often lend their expertise to crafting amicus briefs. Members are encouraged to submit news about their work on amicus briefs to the AHA’s Members Making News announcements.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLearn More\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\tAmicus Briefs by AHA Members<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExpand<\/i><\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t AHA members Holly Brewer (Univ. of Maryland) and Laura F. Edwards (Princeton Univ.) co-authored<\/a> an article<\/a> for Washington Monthly<\/em> on the US Supreme Court’s decisions related to gun control. The article examines how perceptions of history and tradition are used in gun control rulings by the Court and the roles that history and historians could and should have in shaping gun control legislation. It also features an amicus curiae brief<\/a> that Brewer, Edwards, and other AHA members and historians submitted for United States vs. Rahimi<\/em>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A group of 15 founding-era historians represented by the Brennan Center for Justice have filed<\/a> an amicus curiae brief<\/a> in Trump v. United States<\/em>, challenging the former president’s claim of immunity. The authors include AHA members Holly Brewer (Univ. of Maryland), Rosemarie Zagarri (George Mason Univ.), Jack N. Rakove (Stanford Univ.), Jonathan Gienapp (Stanford Univ.), Gautham Rao (American Univ.), Alexander Keyssar (Harvard Univ.), and Joanne Freeman (Yale Univ.).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n AHA members Kate Masur (Northwestern Univ.) and Gregory Downs (Univ. of California, Davis) served as the lead historians<\/a> on an amicus brief <\/a>submitted by professors of history and law to the Supreme Court for Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College<\/em> and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina<\/em>. The brief contests the “originalist” claim that the 14th Amendment does not permit race-conscious policies of any kind.<\/p>\n To help change the national legal conversation on history and the Constitution, the Brennan Center for Justice has convened a council of expert historians from leading institutions nationwide. The Brennan Center for Justice is an independent, nonpartisan law and policy organization that works to reform, revitalize, and\u00a0when necessary, defend\u00a0our country’s systems of democracy and justice.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLearn More\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\tAmicus Briefs by Members of the Historians Council<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExpand<\/i><\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t A group of seven history and law professors, represented by Mayer Brown LLP, filed a brief<\/a> defending the constitutionality of a federal statute prohibiting users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms.<\/p>\n Legal historian Jane Manners, represented by the Brennan Center and Friedman Kaplan Seiler Adelman & Robbins LLP, filed a brief<\/a> challenging the removal of a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission.<\/p>\n Legal historian Jane Manners, represented by Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Friedman Kaplan Seiler Adelman & Robbins LLP, and the Brennan Center filed a brief<\/a> challenging the removal of a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.<\/p>\n Legal historian Jane Manners, represented by the Brennan Center, and Friedman Kaplan Seiler Adelman LLP filed a brief<\/a> challenging the removal of a member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority.<\/p>\n Legal historian Jane Manners and her counsel Friedman Kaplan Seiler Adelman LLP and the Brennan Center filed a brief<\/a> challenging the removal of independent agency officials.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Two US historians and professors of legal history represented by Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP have filed a brief<\/a> challenging an executive order undermining birthright citizenship.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A group of 4 voting rights historians represented by Mayer Brown LLP have filed a brief<\/a> in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe<\/em>, an appeal involving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Two US historians and professors of legal history represented by Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP have filed a brief<\/a> challenging an executive order undermining birthright citizenship.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Two US historians and professors of legal history represented by Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP have filed a brief<\/a> challenging an executive order undermining birthright citizenship.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A group of four voting rights historians represented by Mayer Brown LLP and the Yale Law School Supreme Court Clinic have filed a brief<\/a> in Nairne v. Landry<\/em>, an appeal involving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A group of 4 voting rights historians represented by Mayer Brown LLP and the Yale Law School Supreme Court Clinic have filed a brief<\/a> in Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. et al. v. Secretary of State of Georgia,<\/em> an appeal involving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A group of 15 founding era historians represented by the Brennan Center and Friedman Kaplan Seiler Adelman LLP have filed a brief<\/a> challenging former President Donald Trump’s claim of immunity.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n\n\t\t\tAHA Amicus Briefs\t<\/h3>\n\t
AHA Files Amicus Brief in Support of Foreign Scholars (2025)<\/h5>\n
AHA Signs On to Amicus Curiae Brief in United States v. Skrmetti<\/em> Supreme Court Case (2024)<\/h5>\n
AHA and OAH Discuss Amicus Brief in Haaland v. Brackeen<\/em> (2022)<\/h5>\n
History, the Supreme Court, and\u00a0Dobbs v. Jackson<\/i>: Joint Statement from the AHA and the OAH (2022)<\/h5>\n
AHA Amicus Curiae Brief in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization<\/em> (2021)<\/h5>\n
Lepore v. United States<\/em>: AHA Signs On to Amicus Curiae Brief on Records Release (2021)<\/h5>\n
AHA Signs On to Amicus Brief in Ahmad v. Michigan<\/em> (2020)<\/h5>\n
AHA Signs On to Amicus Curiae Brief Providing Historical Context to the Decision to Rescind DACA (2019)<\/h5>\n
AHA Signs On to Amicus Brief in Pitch v. United States<\/em> (2019)<\/h5>\n
AHA Signs On to Amicus Curiae Brief in Obergefell Case on Same-Sex Marriage (2015)<\/h5>\n
\n\t\t\tAHA Members & Amicus Briefs\t<\/h3>\n
\n\t\t\tMembers Making News\t<\/h4>\n\t
AHA Members Co-author Article on SCOTUS and Gun Control (2024)<\/h5>\n
Historians Author Amicus Curiae Brief in Trump v. United States<\/em> (2024)<\/h5>\n
AHA Members Serve as Lead Historians on Amicus Brief on Race-Conscious Policies (2022)<\/h5>\n
\n\t\t\tHistorians Council at the Brennan Center\t<\/h3>\n
\n\t\t\tHistorians Council on the Constitution\t<\/h4>\n\t
Historians’ Amicus Brief in United States v. Hemani<\/em> (2026)<\/h5>\n
Historians’ Amicus Brief in Trump v. Slaughter<\/em> (2025)<\/h5>\n
Historians’ Amicus Brief in Trump v. Cook<\/em> (2025)<\/h5>\n
Historians’ Amicus Brief in Grundmann v. Trump<\/em> (2025)<\/h5>\n
Historians’ Amicus Brief in Trump v. Boyle<\/em> (2025)<\/h5>\n
Historians’ Amicus Brief in New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support et al. v. Trump<\/em> (2025)<\/h5>\n
Historians’ Amicus Brief in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe<\/em> (2025)<\/h5>\n
Historians’ Amicus Brief in Doe v. Trump<\/em> (2025)<\/h5>\n
Historians’ Amicus Brief in New Jersey v. Trump<\/em> (2025)<\/h5>\n
Historians’ Amicus Brief in Nairne v. Landry<\/em> (2024)<\/h5>\n
Historians’ Amicus Brief in Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., et al., v. Secretary of State of Georgia<\/em> (2024)<\/h5>\n
Historians’ Amicus Brief in Trump v. United States<\/em> (2024)<\/h5>\n
Historians’ Amicus Brief in Relentless v. Department of Commerce<\/em> (2024)<\/h5>\n