Antis amicus in Chicago case
Clayton Cramer discusses "Embarrassingly Bad Amicus Brief in the Chicago Case.". He does a good job of taking its historical claims apart, and has a link to it.
I read it and think his title justified for a different reason as well. Legal citation is done to the standard of the Blue Book (at various times the White Book, etc.). This brief has ... well, it reads as if nobody had ever read that set of standards. It cites to State reporters without West reporters, or West without State, inserts the court's name next to the date when which court it was was already apparent from the cite, got the title of the case wrong, etc.. It'd be astonishingly sloppy work for a routine trial court brief, but for an appellate brief on an new and important issue, is about unbelievable.