adds that “this was not the only time that Justice Scalia
has gratuitously attacked psychology.”
Related to the introduction of scientific information
into court cases, another important role of the U.S.
Supreme Court has been to interpret the Federal Rules
of Evidence as far as standards for the admissibility of
scientific evidence (social, as well as physical, science)
and technical knowledge into federal trials. Leading
cases in this area from recent years include Kumho Tire
Company v. Carmichael(1999) and Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharmaceuticals(1993).RReesseeaarrcchh oonn tthhee PPssyycchhoollooggyy ooff
SSuupprreemmee CCoouurrtt DDeecciissiioonn MMaakkiinngg
The cognitive and interpersonal processes that go
into the justices’ own decision making have been active
research topics in their own right. As summarized by
Wrightsman (2006), areas of inquiry include pressures
toward group conformity (that there appear to be more
unanimous decisions, and fewer 8:1 decisions, than
would be expected, suggests that such pressures are
operative); whether the justices’ ultimate votes can be
predicted from an analysis of their questioning during
oral arguments; and content analysis of justices’ written
opinions to assess the cognitive complexity exhibited in
the opinions and see if situational factors (e.g., being in
the majority or dissent) affect levels of complexity. One
of the major scholarly projects on Supreme Court deci-
sion making in recent years, Washington University’s
Supreme Court Forecasting Project, has an extensive
database online. Guiding such empirical studies are
conceptual models known as the legal model, the atti-
tudinal model, and the rational choice model.
Alan ReifmanSee alsoAmicus Curiae BriefsFurther Readings
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
Breyer, S. (2005). Active liberty: Interpreting our democratic
constitution.New York: Knopf.
Brown v. Board of Education,347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Caplan, L. (1987). The tenth justice: The Solicitor General
and the rule of law.New York: Knopf.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,509 U.S. 579
(1993).
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
Krause, H. D., & Meyer, D. D. (2003). Family Law in a
Nutshell(4th ed.). St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.
Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael,526 U.S. 137 (1999).
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
Lazarus, E. (1998). Closed chambers:The first eyewitness
account of the epic struggles inside the Supreme Court.
New York: Times Books.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey,
505 U.S. 833 (1992).
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).
Stohr, G. (2004). A black and white case: How affirmative
action survived its greatest legal challenge.Princeton,
NJ: Bloomberg Press.
United States v. Virginia,518 U.S. 515 (1996).
Wrightsman, L. S. (2006). The psychology of the Supreme
Court. New York: Oxford University Press.Web Sites
American Psychological Association, list of amicus briefs:
http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/amicus.html
U.S. Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov
Washington University Supreme Court Forecasting Project:
http://wusct.wustl.edu828 ———U.S. Supreme CourtU-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 828