As the political arena becomes increasingly polarized, the legal arena is playing a more important role in the creation of education policy in the United States. One critical stage in the legal process for such efforts is at briefing where "amici curiae," or friends-of-the-court, may introduce additional arguments for the court to consider through the filing of "amicus curiae" briefs. To explore the use of extra-legal sources by "amici," we focus on the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case "Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin" and ask the questions: (1) What are the types, and relative use by "amici," of extra-legal sources cited in the briefs submitted in "Fisher I?"; and (2) What is the relative use of extralegal sources cited in "amicus" briefs by supporting party and by category of "amici?" Our findings reveal the wide-range of extra-legal sources used in "amicus" briefs, and that the type of extra-legal sources incorporated may be associated with who the "amici" are and which party they support. Ultimately, we discuss potential reasons for the differences observed in the use of extra-legal sources and offer recommendations to more effectively engage in the policy briefing process.