A substantial research endeavour carried out by a team of three theoretical linguists and a law professor on three cases pending before the US Supreme Court in its 1993-4 term resulted in a major law review article which was sent to the Court while the cases were being considered. Unlike the usual amicus curiae brief, this research was not undertaken in support of any party in any of the cases. In one of the cases there is reason to believe that the team's analysis may have contributed to the Court's decision and opinion; in another, the concurring opinion seems to have rested directly on the team's analysis; and in the third, although the opinion showed no evidence of reliance on the team's research, the decision was nonetheless in line with the team's findings. The receptiveness of at least some of the current justices of the US Supreme Court to the applicability and relevance of language analysis as carried out by linguists in cases that depend on the resolution of linguistic issues is a hopeful sign to those interested in seeing growth in the recognition of the relevance of linguistics to the law.