Abstract
Federal courts are called upon to decide claims by individual members of the armed forces that they have been mistreated by their superiors. A court's decision will often depend on the judge's perception of the necessity of the action in maintaining morale and discipline. Recently, government lawyers have begun to justify commanders' actions on the grounds of unit cohesion. This article examines those justifications by applying models developed to evaluate the use of social science findings in law suits and concludes that cohesion arguments have no place in the courtroom.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
