English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We investigate shared language between U.S. Supreme Court majority opinionsand interest groups' corresponding amicus briefs. Specifically, we evaluatewhether language that originated in an amicus brief acquired legal precedentstatus by being cited in the Court's opinion. Using plagiarism detectionsoftware, automated querying of a large legal database, and manual analysis, weestablish seven instances where interest group amici were able to formulateconstitutional case law, setting binding legal precedent. We discuss severalsuch instances for their implications in the Supreme Court's creation of caselaw.

Constitutional Precedent of Amicus Briefs