Citation accuracy, misinformation, and harmless error in American Psychological Association amicus curiae briefs: Commentary on Marcus et al. (2025)

Abstract

Based on a review of 16 recently submitted amicus curiae briefs by the American Psychological Association (APA) to the Supreme Court of the United States and other important courts, Marcus et al. (2025) strongly suggest that these briefs contain a significant number of inaccurate citations. They argue that these miscitations (a) misinform the court about important psychological findings, (b) could lead to significant injustice and harm, and (c) jeopardize the reputation of the APA vis-à-vis the courts and public. In this commentary, while acknowledging that inaccurate citations should be corrected, we take issue with (a) the manner in which Marcus et al. coded APA's amicus curiae briefs, (b) the significance of the problems created by these miscitations, and (c) the authors' misunderstanding of courts' review and use of amicus curiae briefs in judicial decision making. In the end, while agreeing there might be a need for additional review to prevent inaccurate citation in amicus curiae briefs, we argue that most of the inaccurate citations are likely harmless errors with little effect on APA's reputation or court decisions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).