Early Attempts to Apply Psychological or Psychiatric Knowledge to the Legal System 395to the law.” Although it has been suggested (Kuna, 1978) that
Münsterberg was more an opportunist than a trailblazer,
some (e.g., Bartol & Bartol, 1999, p. 7) suggest that he still
made a major contribution by drawing attention to the possi-
bility of applying psychology to legal issues.
Amicus Curiae Briefs
At about the same time, the first legal amicus curiae (“friend
of the court”) brief that contained then-current social science
(extralegal) knowledge about an issue was submitted to
the Oregon Supreme Court by attorney (and later U.S.
Supreme Court justice) Louis Brandeis, in Muller v. Oregon
(1908). The brief argued that Oregon’s statute limiting
women to 10-hour workdays should be upheld because social
science knowledge showed that longer workdays would be
deleterious to women’s health and well-being. The court’s
decision upheld the position taken in the brief. Subsequently,
such briefs have been called “Brandeis briefs” or science-
translation briefs. The original Brandeis brief remains the
source of some controversy because of its references to
“general ‘female weakness’ ” and to “the periodical semi-
pathological state of women” (quoted in Monahan & Loftus,
1982, p. 463). The “evidence” presented consisted largely of
value statements and casual observations. This brief did not
instantly start a trend, as presenting extralegal information to
the courts did not become common until the late 1930s
(Hafemeister & Melton, 1987).
TheMuller(1908) case is generally recognized as the first
historical example of using social science data as social
authority(Monahan & Walker, 1987) in order to create or
change a legal rule. The most famous case of this sort is prob-
ablyBrown v. Board of Education (1954), the landmark
ruling that made school segregation illegal. This was also the
first application of social science to attack, rather than sup-
port, the actions of the state (Hafemeister & Melton, 1987).
The science-translation brief was known as the “Social Sci-
ence Statement.” Because this was a case with extraordinary
social, political, and societal ramifications, we will discuss it
in some detail.
In the early 1950s, lawyers from the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People’s Legal Defense and
Education Fund, led by Thurgood Marshall (who later be-
came a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court), were working on
several segregation cases that they hoped would reach the
Supreme Court. Within psychology, a committee on inter-
group relations, formed by the Society for the Psychological
Study of Social Issues (SPSSI) shortly after World War II,
prepared a statement on this issue for four school segregation
cases that were moving toward the U.S. Supreme Court. The
Court agreed to hear the first two of the school segregation
cases in 1952. Three members of the committee, Kenneth B.
Clark, Isidor Chein, and Stuart Cook, drafted a statement
submitted to the Supreme Court. This appendix to the plain-
tiffs’ legal briefs, labeled the Social Science Statement, did
not discuss specific research studies but referred to the rele-
vant research in 35 footnotes. The Statement made three
central arguments (Kluger, 1976): (a) Segregation was psy-
chologically damaging to minority group children. It pro-
duced low self-esteem, self-hatred, frustration, and increased
chances of delinquency. (b) Segregation was also harmful to
majority group children, who experienced a distorted sense
of reality, confusion, and “moral cynicism.” (c) Desegrega-
tion could proceed smoothly if it were done quickly and
firmly. The third argument relied heavily on studies of
beneficial interracial contact in housing and employment sit-
uations. The Statement framed the argument strictly in scien-
tific terms rather than political, legal, or moral ones. The
Statement was subsequently signed by 32 other prominent
social scientists. Included among the signatures were those of
14 past or future presidents of SPSSI (Jackson, 1998) and
most of the psychologists who had been studying social prej-
udice since the 1930s.
During deliberations, the Supreme Court justices asked
both sides to prepare new arguments on the issue of whether
desegregation should be immediate and complete, or whether
“an effective gradual adjustment” would be better. Psychol-
ogy’s response, written by Kenneth B. Clark (1953), con-
cluded that immediate desegregation could be effective when
imposed swiftly and with firm authority from above. Five
conditions that would ensure effective desegregation were
described: (a) a clear and unequivocal statement of policy by
prestigious leaders; (b) firm enforcement of the new policy;
(c) a willingness to deal strongly with violations; (d) a refusal
to allow subterfuge or delay by local authorities; and (e) an
appeal to individuals based on their religious principles of
brotherhood and the American tradition of fair play and
justice.
On May 14, 1954, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously
that school segregation was a violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment. This was the court’s first major decision under
its new chief justice, Earl Warren. Warren wrote that “modern
authority” showed that the assumptions implicit in the 1896
Plessy v. Fergusondecision that had upheld so-called “sepa-
rate but equal” facilities were not valid. All seven sources
cited in support of this point (in footnote 11) had been dis-
cussed in the Social Science Statement.
But the psychologists’ job was not yet over. After its 1954
Browndecision, the Court asked for yet another round of
arguments focusing on the issue of immediate versus gradual