The Supreme Court’s Confused Empirical Jurisprudence

CEO David Faigman just published an editorial in Bloomberg BNA regarding the scientific evidence in the recently decided Supreme Court case Glossip v. Gross. Download the article here.

The Supreme Court’s June 29 ruling in Glossip v. Gross — which applied a "clearly erroneous" standard of review in a decision about lethal injections—is a stark reminder that the Justices have ‘‘little understanding of science and make no effort to connect relevant scientific premises to their constitutional decisions,’’ Professor David L. Faigman says.

If constitutional decisions rest on scientific bases, as more and more of them do, it is "incumbent on the Justices to be well versed in the rigors of experimental or statistical technique," the author says.

Comments (0)

    Leave a comment