Different from more traditional policy-making avenues, the courts provide an antipolitical arena that does not require broad agreement from various constituents for policy enactment. Seeking to guide court decisions on these policy issues, individuals and organizations have filed amicus briefs that increasingly include social science to support their arguments. The Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin Supreme Court case presents an ideal example to study the use of social science evidence in amicus briefs to shape educational policy. Findings from this study identify differences in the use of social science research that suggest many ways in which our current understanding of the efforts of actors to shape educational policy via the highest court in the nation is incomplete. This study also highlights why developing this understanding could be extremely useful to both the creation of educational policy and the use of antipolitical approaches to change such policy.
AnchetaA. N. (2006). Scientific evidence and equal protection of the law. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
2.
AndersonH. A. (2015). Frenemies of the court: The many faces of amicus curiae. University of Richmond Law Review, 49, 361-416.
3.
AsenR.GurkeD.ConnersP.SolomonR.GummE. (2013). Research evidence and school board deliberations: Lessons from three Wisconsin school districts. Educational Policy, 27, 33-63.
4.
BastowS.DunleavyP.TinklerJ. (2014). The impact of the social sciences: How academics and their research make a difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
5.
BersoffD. N. (1987, January). Social science data and the Supreme Court: Lockhart as a case in point. American Psychologist, 42(1), 52-58.
6.
BersoffD. N.OgdenD. W. (1991). APA amicus curiae briefs: Furthering lesbian and gay male civil rights. American Psychologist, 46, 950-956.
7.
Box-SteffensmeierJ. M.ChristensonD. P.HittM. P. (2013). Quality over quantity: Amici influence and judicial decision making. American Political Science Review, 107, 446-460.
8.
BradleyE. H.CurryL. A.DeversK. J. (2007). Qualitative data analysis for health services research: Developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Research & Educational Trust, 42, 1758-1772.
CaldeiraG. A.WrightJ. R. (1988). Organized interest and agenda-setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 82, 1109-1128.
11.
CaldeiraG. A.WrightJ. R. (1990). Amici curiae before the Supreme Court: Who participates, when, and how much?Journal of Politics, 52, 782-806.
12.
CollinsP. M.Jr. (2004). Friends of the court: Examining the influence of amicus curiae participation in U.S. Supreme Court litigation. Law & Society Review, 38, 807-832.
13.
CollinsP. M.Jr. (2007). Lobbyists before the U.S. Supreme Court: Investigating the influence of amicus curiae briefs. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 55-70.
14.
CollinsP. M.Jr. (2008). Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest groups and judicial decision making. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15.
DaviesH.NutleyS. M.SmithP. C. (2009). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. (Original work published 2000)
16.
DeBrayE.ScottJ.LubienskiC.JabbarH. (2014). Intermediary organizations in charter school policy coalitions: Evidence from New Orleans. Educational Policy, 28, 175-206.
17.
DennoD. W. (2006). The scientific shortcomings of Roper v. Simmons. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 3, 379-396.
18.
DunnJ.WestM. (2008). Calculated justice: Education research and the courts. In HessF. M. (Ed.), When research matters: How scholarship influences education policy (pp. 155-176). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
19.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).
20.
EnnisB. J. (1984). Effective amicus briefs. Catholic University Law Review, 33, 603-610.
21.
EricksonR. J.SimonR. J. (1998). The use of social science data in Supreme Court decisions. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
22.
FeuerM. JTowneL.ShavelsonR. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4-14.
23.
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Fisher I), 570 U.S. 297 (2013).
24.
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Fisher II), 136 S. Ct. 2198 (2016).
25.
FiskeS. T.BersoffD. N.BorgidaE.DeauxK.HeilmanM. E. (1991). Social science research on trial: Use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. American Psychologist, 46(10), 1049-1060.
26.
FrankenbergE.GarcesL. M. (2008). The use of social science evidence in Parents Involved and Meredith: Implications for researchers and schools. University of Louisville Law Review, 46(4), 703-751.
27.
GarcesL. M. (2013). Social science research and the courts: Considering post-Grutter v. Bollinger developments in higher education cases. Educational Policy, 27(4), 591-614.
28.
GarcesL. M.JayakumarU. (2014). Dynamic diversity: Toward a contextual understanding of critical mass. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 115-124.
29.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244. (2003).
30.
GrissoT.SaksM. J. (1991). Psychology’s influence on constitutional interpretation: A comment on how to succeed. Law and Human Behavior, 15(2), 205-211.
31.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
32.
HansfordT. G.JohnsonK. (2014). The supply of amicus curiae briefs in the market for information at the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice System Journal, 35, 362-382. doi:10.1080/0098261X.2014.936193
33.
HoeweJ.ZeldesG. A. (2012). Overturning anti-miscegenation laws: News media coverage of the Lovings’ legal case against the state of Virginia. Journal of Black Studies, 43, 427-443. doi:10.1177/0021934711428070
34.
HornC. L.MarinP. (2014, April). Understanding the Use of Research by Amici: The Case of Fisher. American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
35.
KearneyJ. D.MerrillT. W. (2000). The influence of amicus curiae briefs on the Supreme Court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 148, 743-846.
36.
LarsenA. O. (2014). The trouble with amicus facts. Virginia Law Review, 100, 1757-1818.
37.
LubienskiC.ScottJ.DeBrayE. (2014). The politics of research production, promotion, and utilization in educational policy. Educational Policy, 28, 131-144.
38.
LynchK. J. (2004). Best friends? Supreme Court law clerks on effective amicus curiae briefs. Journal of Law & Politics, 20, 33-73.
39.
MarinP.HornC. L.MikschK.GarcesL. M.YunJ. (2018). Use of extra-legal sources in amicus curiae briefs submitted in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Education Policy Analysis Archives26(38), 1-29.
40.
McCormackN. (2009). Peer review and legal publishing: What law librarians need to know about open, single-blind, and double-blind reviewing. Law Library Journal, 101, 59-70.
41.
McMillanJ. H. (2012). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer. Boston, MA: Pearson.
42.
MeltonG. B. (1987, May). Bringing psychology to the legal system: Opportunities, obstacles, and efficacy. American Psychologist, 42, 488-495.
43.
MertzE. (2010). The role of social science in law: Introduction (University of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1142). Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1711222
44.
MorganJ. M.PullinD. (2010). Social science and the courts: Challenges and strategies for bridging gaps between law and research. Educational Researcher, 39, 515-524.
45.
NutleyS. M.WalterI.DaviesH. T. O. (2008). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. (Original work published 2007)
46.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007).
47.
PlankD. N.BoydW. L. (1994). Antipolitics, education, and institutional choice: The flight from democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 263-281. doi:10.3102/00028312031002263
48.
RoeschR.GoldingS. L.HansV. P.ReppucciN. D. (1991). Social science and the courts: The role of amicus curiae briefs. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 1-11.
49.
RublinA. (2011). The role of social science in judicial decision making: How gay rights advocates can learn from integration and capital punishment case law. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 19, 179-222.
50.
RyanJ. E. (2003). The limited influence of social science evidence in modern desegregation cases. North Carolina Law Review, 81, 1659-1702.
51.
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action et al., 134 S.Ct. 1623. (2014).
52.
SegalJ. A. (1988). Amicus curiae briefs by the solicitor general during the Warren and Burger courts. Western Political Quarterly, 41, 135-144.
53.
SimardL. S. (2008). An empirical study of amici curiae in federal court: A fine balance of access, efficiency, and adversarialism. The Review of Litigation, 27, 670-711.
54.
SimpsonR. W.VasalyM. R. (2015). The amicus brief: Answering the ten most important questions about amicus practice (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Bar Association.
55.
SongerD. R.SheehanR. S. (1993, June). Interest group success in the courts: Amicus participation in the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 339-354.
56.
SpriggsJ. F.WahlbeckP. J. (1997). Amicus curiae and the role of information at the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 365-386.
57.
StoneD. (1984). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104, 281-300.
58.
StoneD. (2011). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
59.
SuperfineB. M. (2010). Court-driven reform and equal educational opportunity: Centralization, decentralization, and the shifting judicial role. Review of Educational Research, 80, 108-137. doi:10.3102/0034654309354300
60.
TsengV. (2012). The uses of research in policy and practice. Social Policy Report, 26(2), 1-16.
61.
WeissC. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426-431.
62.
WeissC. H. (1987). The diffusion of social science research to policymakers: An overview. In MeltonG. (Ed.), Reforming the law: Impact of child development research (pp. 63-85). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
63.
WelnerK. G. (2012). Scholars as policy actors: Research, public discourse, and the zone of judicial constraints. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 7-29.
64.
WilliamsS. M.McDermottK. A. (2014). Social science research and school diversity policy. Educational Policy, 28, 325-346.
65.
WoffordC. B. (2015). Assessing the anecdotes: Amicus curiae, legal rules, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice System Journal, 36, 274-294.
66.
ZuberK.SommerU.ParentJ. (2015). Setting the agenda of the United States Supreme Court? Organized interests and the decision to file an amicus curiae brief at cert. Justice System Journal, 36, 119-137.
