Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

simply, greater likelihood than not (easier for Schlup to

prove) that the new evidence would be able to sway a

“reasonable juror.”

In other cases, the U.S. Supreme Court’s role is to

decide if a lawsuit can go forward at the trial level (e.g.,

in a U.S. District Court). Subsumed under this larger

issue are more specific questions, such as whether the

parties bringing suit have legal standing to do so and

whether an issue is one that can be properly deliberated

and decided in the judicial arena, as opposed to legisla-

tive or other nonjudicial venues (if so, the issue is said to

be “justiciable”). The landmark legislative redistricting

case of Baker v. Carr(1962) is illustrative of such cases.

Overturning of Precedents

Many justices and commentators advocate adherence

to precedents or stare decisis.However, as alluded to

above, the Supreme Court occasionally reverses one of

its major decisions. Lawrence Wrightsman (2006,

p. 232), drawing on the 1992 case of Planned

Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey,

summarizes four factors justices may consider when

deciding whether to overturn precedent:

• The workability of the [existing] rule


• The extent to which the public has relied on the rule


• Relevant changes in legal doctrine


• Changes in the facts or perceptions of the facts

Interface of Psychological Science

and the Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court is relevant in at least two sig-

nificant ways to the study of psychology and law. First,

research on human behavioral processes may be rele-

vant to deciding a case. Second, a substantial body of

empirical studies on psychological and other factors

appearing to play a role in Supreme Court justices’

decisions is rapidly accumulating.

RReecceenntt CCaasseess IInnvvoollvviinngg

SSttuuddiieess ooff HHuummaann BBeehhaavviioorr

Cases being debated in the U.S. Supreme Court

may involve issues of human behavior. For example,

in deciding whether a governmental practice is, “cruel

and unusual” or demonstrative of a “compelling” state

interest, some justices on the Court may wish to con-

sult evidence from the social sciences. Accordingly,

professional organizations may submit amicus briefs

attempting to guide the Court on matters of human

behavior. A systematic listing of amicus briefs filed by

the American Psychological Association is available

on its Web site (listed at the end of this entry).

Historically, probably the best known citation of

social science research in a U.S. Supreme Court opin-

ion is that in Brown v. Board of Education(1954, foot-

note 11). A sampling of contemporary Supreme Court

cases raising behavioral science issues are summa-

rized as follows, for illustrative purposes:

In Roper v. Simmons(2005), the Court had to decide

whether it was constitutional to impose the death

penalty on individuals who committed their crimes

while younger than 18. The case, therefore, raised ques-

tions of adolescents’ cognitive and emotional maturity.

In disallowing such executions, the majority opinion

cited research from developmental psychology, noting,

among other findings, that compared with older indi-

viduals, adolescents are more “impetuous” or impul-

sive. They are also more susceptible to peer pressure

and would likely be less able to get themselves out of

situations where violence could take place.

Gratz v. Bollinger(2003) and Grutter v. Bollinger

(2003), companion cases on whether the University of

Michigan’s admissions policies for its undergraduate

and law school programs, respectively, could constitu-

tionally use race as a factor, hinged in part on the

University’s claim that attending an institution with a

diverse student body tended to confer academic and

social benefits on majority and minority students. Such

a finding would appear to strengthen the argument for

a university having a compelling state interest in pro-

viding a diverse student body and, potentially, for par-

ticular methods used to achieve this objective. Indeed,

Justice O’Connor’s majority opinion in Grutternoted

that “the Law School’s claim of a compelling interest is

further bolstered by its amici, who point to the educa-

tional benefits that flow from student body diversity.”

Supreme Court justices vary widely in their recep-

tivity to psychological and other social scientific evi-

dence. In some of the above cases, such evidence

appears to have played a substantial role in the Court’s

decision making (or, at least, was cited in the majority

opinion). In contrast, other justices appear to take a

much more negative view. Wrightsman (2006) quotes

Justice Antonin Scalia as alluding to “those of us who

have made a career of reading the disciples of Black-

stone rather than of Freud” (p. 103). Wrightsman also

U.S. Supreme Court——— 827

U-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 827