Hi. Schwartz et R. Boland, USING SCIENCE TO INFLUENCE THE SUPREME-COURT ON THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TREATMENT - AMICUS-CURIAE BRIEFS IN WASHINGTON V HARPER, Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 23(1), 1995, pp. 135-146
The Supreme Court's use of empirical behavioral science data has grown
dramatically in the 40 years since Brown v, Board of Education. Most
of these data are submitted in amicus curiae (friend of the court) bri
efs submitted by parties with an interest in the outcome of the signif
icant mental health law cases coming before the court, The increasing
use of such briefs raises important questions, Is there evidence that
the court is actually influenced by such briefs? Can scientific/profes
sional organizations present scientific data objectively in a clearly
adversarial document? A review of the nine amicus briefs filed in Wash
ington v, Harper, a right to refuse treatment case, and a comparison o
f the Court's opinion with that of the dissent demonstrate that both t
he majority and the dissent refer to arguments contained in the briefs
, incorporate elements of these arguments, and occasionally paraphrase
references cited in the briefs, It remains unclear whether the Court
uses such arguments to formulate opinions or to justify them, A compar
ison of the briefs presented by the American Psychological Association
and the American Psychiatric Association highlights the challenge to
scientific objectivity inherent in participation in the amicus process
.