The Use of Social Science Data in Supreme Court DecisionsThe legal community traditionally has drawn unsystematically and at will on the findings of social science, sometimes with unfortunate results. The authors of this study explore this issue by focusing on the way the United States Supreme Court uses social science data in reaching its decisions. Concentrating on decisions involving abortion, sex discrimination, and sexual harassment, they show that the use of such data has increased over the last twenty years, but that the data's use by the court appears to hinge more on the judges' liberal, conservative, or long-held positions and the types of cases involved than on the objectivity or validity of the data. By offering insights into how data are used by the Supreme Court, the authors hope to show social scientists how to make their research more suitable for courtroom use and to show the legal community how such data can be used more effectively. The volume includes an overview of the kinds of research used, a list of cases in which such research was used, and a discussion of justices and how they voted on cases in which such data were used from 1972 to 1992. |
Contents
Introduction | 1 |
Social Science and the Law | 5 |
Expert Witness Testimony and Amicus Curiae | 19 |
Abortion | 35 |
Sex Discrimination | 92 |
Sexual Harassment | 135 |
Results and Conclusions | 149 |
Overview of the Research Design | 157 |
List of Cases | 161 |
167 | |
177 | |
Other editions - View all
The Use of Social Science Data in Supreme Court Decisions Rosemary J. Erickson,Rita James Simon No preview available - 1998 |
Common terms and phrases
abor abortion ACLU Akron American amicus curiae appeals court argues Brandeis brief briefs Chief Justice citations to social cited social science claim constitutional Court of Appeals Court opinion courtroom decision dissenting opinion district court EEOC employer employment ence equal protection expert testimony expert witnesses F.Supp fact family planning female fetus filed a dissenting funding Goldstein 1988 Harris Hoff-Wilson Hyde Amendment issue Johnson Controls joined Journal judges jury Justice Blackmun Justice Brennan Justice Burger Justice Marshall Justice O'Connor Justice Rehnquist Justice Stewart Justice White legislation lower courts majority opinion male ment Meritor Muller parental consent percent physician Planned Parenthood pregnancy psychological references to social requirement Rosen Ruth Bader Ginsburg says Scalia scientific sex discrimination sexual harassment social sci social science data social science literature spousal statistics statute studies Tanford tion Title VII U.S. Supreme Court unconstitutional violation woman women workplace