{"id":97,"date":"2017-11-01T13:35:50","date_gmt":"2017-11-01T18:35:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/?p=97"},"modified":"2019-07-03T23:44:19","modified_gmt":"2019-07-04T04:44:19","slug":"from-mcclesky-to-whitford-the-supreme-courts-ambivalent-attitude-towards-social-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=97","title":{"rendered":"From McClesky to Whitford: the Supreme Court’s Ambivalent Attitude Towards Social Science"},"content":{"rendered":"

McCleskey v. Kemp<\/em> was decided on April 22, 1987<\/a>, and yet the 30 years that have elapsed since Justice Powell circulated his majority opinion<\/a> have done little to soften McCleskey<\/em>\u2019s sharp edges. The case concerned a challenge from a death-row inmate to the administration of capital punishment in Georgia, where he had been sentenced for the killing of a white police officer. McCleskey argued that his capital sentence was driven in large part by his race, in combination with the race of his victim, and that these considerations violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. As evidence, McCleskey proffered a study<\/a> demonstrating that a black man who killed a white man in Georgia received a death sentence 22% of the time, as compared to the 1% of death sentences in cases where the victim was also black.\u00a0 Writing for the majority of the Court, Justice Powell held that social science studies could not prove that there was an individual intent to discriminate against McCleskey during his prosecution or trial, and that his challenge was therefore deficient. McCleskey, having lost his case, was put to death on September 26, 1991.<\/p>\n

Powell\u2019s dismissive views of social science are still alive and well at the Supreme Court, as Chief Justice Roberts recently demonstrated with his snide reference to \u201csociological gobbledygook<\/a>\u201d during oral argument on October 3. Professors Mario Barnes (UC-Irvine)<\/a> and Osagie Obasogie (Berkeley) visited Northwestern\u2019s campus last week to discuss their recent research on the Court\u2019s handling of social science at the Northwestern University Law Review 2017 Symposium, A Fear of Too Much Justice<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"
Prof. Barnes speaks while other members of the panel look on.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Prof. Barnes began the discussion by comparing McCleskey<\/em>\u2019s handling of social science with the Warren Court\u2019s use of research data in Brown<\/em> v. Board of Education<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(1954). In Brown<\/em>\u2019s (in)famous footnote 11<\/a>, the Court cited the so-called \u201cdoll studies,\u201d which purported to prove that children of color had lower self-esteem than white children. Since Brown<\/em>, the study\u2019s findings have been challenged on a number of fronts<\/a>, and the Court\u2019s treatment is considered overly credulous by some scholars<\/a>.<\/p>\n

By contrast, McCleskey<\/em> saw the Court attempting to bury the findings of a methodologically sound study so that the majority could reach their desired result, namely, upholding the death penalty in Georgia without regard to its racially disparate application. For Barnes and his coauthor, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky (U.C. Berkeley)<\/a>, these cases demonstrate that the judiciary needs to adopt better norms about the use of social science in the courts. Data should not be a cudgel used to promote a judge\u2019s own presuppositions, nor should it be an obstacle that a judge need only argue around to reach their desired result. Social science should instead inform a judge\u2019s thinking while they consider legal and factual issues, serving much the same function that economics now does in the courtroom. Barnes advocated for the adoption of standards at the Supreme Court concerning when a judge should allow social science to enter the record, and for how that science could be objectively considered, taking the expert testimony standards from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(1993)\u00a0<\/em>as a model.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Prof. Obasagie introduces the symposium.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Professor Obasogie, joined on the panel by his coauthor Zachary Newman (U.C. Berkeley), took a different approach to critiquing the majority opinion in McCleskey<\/em>. In their view, McCleskey<\/em>\u2019s result did not come because of (or in spite of) the Court\u2019s handling of social science, it was instead driven by a desire to narrow the judicial consideration of \u2018intent\u2019 in the context of discrimination. The authors argued that state-sanctioned killing\u2014either a capital sentence imposed in court, or a police shooting in the street\u2014is always the result of a societal structure. In McCleskey\u2019s case, the public of the state of Georgia had an intent to erect the racially discriminatory structures around capital punishment, and it had an intent to maintain them, despite their demonstrably worse effects for black men. And yet in a series of decisions, the Court atomized the meaning of \u2018intent\u2019 within the judicial system such that any consideration of larger social forces\u2014the very forces that are captured and measured in social science\u2014was useless in finding intent. Thus McCleskey<\/em>, alongside Washington v. Davis<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(1976) and Graham v. Connor<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(1989), removed racially discriminatory social structures from the judiciary\u2019s purview, effectively gutting the possibility of any future interventions on the scale of Brown<\/em>.<\/p>\n

To sum up his discussion, Prof. Obasogie asked the audience, \u201cAfter McCleskey<\/em>, what\u2019s left to protect people of color in America?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cJesus. That\u2019s all we have left.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

McCleskey v. Kemp was decided on April 22, 1987, and yet the 30 years that have elapsed since Justice Powell circulated his majority opinion have done little to soften McCleskey\u2019s sharp edges. The case concerned a challenge from a death-row inmate to the administration of capital punishment in Georgia, where he had been sentenced for the killing of a white police officer. McCleskey argued that his capital sentence was driven in large part by his race, in combination with the…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":26,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"image","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[55],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-97","post","type-post","status-publish","format-image","hentry","category-board-member-contribution","post_format-post-format-image"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9jSvD-1z","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":63,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=63","url_meta":{"origin":97,"position":0},"title":"A Fear of Too Much (Criminal) Justice: Social Science Evidence and the Tension Between Reform and Transformation in the Criminal Justice System","author":"Hillary Chutter-Ames","date":"October 30, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"McCleskey v. Kemp\u00a0(1987) was an example of \u201cgood-enough-for-black-people kind of justice.\u201d At least, that was how Professor Paul Butler (Georgetown) characterized the seminal death penalty case under discussion at the recent Northwestern University Law Review Symposium, A Fear of Too Much Justice?: Equal Protection and the Social Sciences 30 Years\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Symposium"","block_context":{"text":"Symposium","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=14"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/IMG_0599-1024x610.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/IMG_0599-1024x610.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/IMG_0599-1024x610.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":167,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=167","url_meta":{"origin":97,"position":1},"title":"Leveraging Social Science Evidence in the Courts Today","author":"Meredith McBride","date":"November 17, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"United States District Judges Edmond E. Chang, Sara L. Ellis, and Virginia M. Kendall comprised the fourth and final panel of the Northwestern University Law Review\u2019s October 20, 2017 symposium, \u201c\u2018A Fear of Too Much Justice\u2019?: Equal Protection and the Social Sciences 30 Years after McCleskey v. Kemp,\"\u00a0engaging questions of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "On Campus"","block_context":{"text":"On Campus","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=17"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/IMG_0607-1-1024x509.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/IMG_0607-1-1024x509.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/IMG_0607-1-1024x509.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":274,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=274","url_meta":{"origin":97,"position":2},"title":"“Reasonably Necessary”: Ayestas v. Davis and Capital Defense Funding for Federal Habeas Proceedings","author":"Eva Derzic","date":"November 20, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"On October 30, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument about the availability of funding for capital defense investigations in Ayestas v. Davis. The specific issue before the Court was whether\u00a018 U.S.C.\u00a0\u00a7 3599(f)\u00a0allows courts to order funding for federal habeas counsel to investigate and develop ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims not raised\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=55"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/14864898642_0e678083fe_k-1024x683.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/14864898642_0e678083fe_k-1024x683.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/14864898642_0e678083fe_k-1024x683.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":2689,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=2689","url_meta":{"origin":97,"position":3},"title":"Why the Buffalo Gunman Faces Both State and Federal Hate Crime Charges","author":"Kai Wiggins","date":"June 29, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"On May 14, an avowed white supremacist\u00a0fatally shot\u00a0ten Black people\u00a0and wounded three others at a Buffalo, New York supermarket. The State of New York\u00a0has since charged\u00a0the gunman with not only first- and second-degree murder but also domestic terrorism and hate crimes. At the same time, the U.S. Department of Justice\u00a0has\u00a0charged\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1826,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1826","url_meta":{"origin":97,"position":4},"title":"The Disregarded Canary: On the Plight of Black Women Voters","author":"Carliss Chatman & Marisa Jackson Sow","date":"October 29, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cDe nigger woman is de mule uh de world so fur as Ah can see.\u201d \u2013 Zora Neale Hurston, Their Eyes Were Watching God In American politics the Black woman voter is both mule and canary. Black women vote at higher rates than most demographics, and overwhelmingly and consistently vote\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Professor contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Professor contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=43"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1453,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1453","url_meta":{"origin":97,"position":5},"title":"Federalism and Communicative Confusion in the Time of COVID-19","author":"Harry Dodsworth","date":"June 4, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"The states, rather than the federal government, have taken the lead in responding to COVID-19. This is in part because states have broad police powers that allow them to enact measures like stay-at-home orders. It is also because the federal government has avoided issuing guidance, even suppressing a recent CDC\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "COVID-19"","block_context":{"text":"COVID-19","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=122"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/26"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=97"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=97"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=97"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=97"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}