In late June, the US Supreme Court issued a trio of key decisions that revoked the right to abortion, relaxed gun restrictions and curtailed climate regulations. While the decisions differed in rationale, they share one distinct feature: All three rejected substantial evidence about how the court’s rulings would affect public health and safety. It’s a troubling trend that many scientists fear could undermine the role of scientific evidence in shaping public policy. As the court prepares for a groundbreaking election policy case, many are concerned about the future of American democracy itself.
Often regarded as the most powerful court in the free world, the Supreme Court rules on laws enacted by Congress and the state legislature, as well as on constitutional disputes at every level of government. Its unusual power, compared to high courts in other democracies, stems in part from its small size and the fact that its nine judges are appointed for life, said Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge who teaches at Harvard University in Cambridge. Massachusetts. This makes appointments both very consistent and highly political. Partisan divisions in the U.S. government make passing new laws difficult and passing constitutional amendments virtually impossible, meaning the court’s word on crucial issues — such as the right to abortion — will last a generation or longer than the law of the United States. country may apply.
Evidence in the balance
The Supreme Court has been tilting to the right ideologically for more than a decade, but the political center of gravity shifted dramatically after former President Donald Trump landed three nominations, culminating in Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020. This may interest you : When you abandon facts, you get junk science. The result, scientists say, is an ultra-conservative, six-member supermajority who is often skeptical—if not outright hostile—science.
“The Supreme Court’s role in American history is a very mixed bag, but this is really unlike anything we’ve ever seen,” said Wendy Parmet, co-director of the Center for Health Policy and Law at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts. . “In some cases they increase individual rights and in others they dismantle individual rights, but the running line is that they reject the science and the real impact of their decisions.”
The Effects of Overthrowing Roe v. Wade in Seven Simple Charts
The Effects of Overthrowing Roe v. Wade in Seven Simple Charts
This is in contrast to a number of judgments made in recent decades, in which the court based itself on scientific and technical expertise. In a 1984 case, Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, for example, the court ruled that government agencies should be allowed latitude in interpreting federal laws as long as their policies are reasonable and based on sound analysis. In a 1993 case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the court addressed scientific questions and established some basic principles judges should use when evaluating evidence and expert testimony, such as ensuring hypotheses are testable and evidence by peers has been assessed.
Scientific evidence has played a role in a number of high-profile issues that have been brought to court. For example, in 2007 the Supreme Court set the stage for modern climate regulation when it ruled that carbon dioxide, and by extension other greenhouse gases, qualify as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. And research on brain development in adolescents has led directly to a series of statements about appropriate sentences for young people convicted of violent crimes. For example, Roper v. Simmons in 2005 found that it was cruel to impose the death penalty on persons under the age of 18 at the time a crime was committed. Several cases over the next decade limited the application of life sentences without parole to minors.
But as the court swung to the ideological right, so did its attitude toward science. For neuroscientists involved in juvenile justice, the tide turned in 2021. By reversing the trend in previous decisions, the Supreme Court allowed a Mississippi court to sentence Brett Jones to life without conducting a mental evaluation of his capacity for change. . Jones was convicted of murdering his grandfather when he was 15 years old.
“There’s no way to argue that this decision was enlightened by science: they clearly ignored it,” said Daniel Weinberger, head of the Lieber Institute for Brain Development at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. “That’s a mindset, and that’s a cause for concern.”
A question of tradition
The prevailing theory among the current Supreme Court majority is known as originalism. Supporters of the theory claim to seek interpretations of the United States Constitution as it would have been understood when it was passed or amended. See the article : Spotlight Scientist: Laura Condon | College of Science. However, some historians have accused the current court of choosing the past to create stories that are incomplete, inconsistent, and sometimes just plain wrong.
For example, in its decision to nullify the right to abortion in June, the court ruled that abortion is not “deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the country.” Writing for the majority, Judge Samuel Alito noted that the idea that the Constitution guarantees a woman’s right to abortion did not exist before the late 1900s, and that abortion was illegal in every state before the landmark Roe v. Wade court decision that granted that right in 1973.
US gun policy: what researchers know about their effectiveness
US gun policy: what researchers know about their effectiveness
That assessment ignores more than a century of the country’s early history, when abortion was tolerated in the first three or four months of pregnancy. The American Historical Association in Washington DC and the Organization of American Historians in Bloomington, Indiana, outlined this early history in a court briefing before the verdict. The briefing criticized the Supreme Court for rejecting this reality and instead adopting a “misinterpretation of abortion crime that has been pressured by anti-abortion proponents for more than 30 years.”
In doing so, the court also rejected decades of research showing that its decision would negatively affect women’s health and increase long-standing inequalities in the health system. “The court’s willingness to express opinions that are likely to have observable adverse effects on the population is astonishing,” Parmet says, “and runs counter to the long tradition of how courts deal with public health issues.”
Civil service on the defensive
The court took a different course in its latest climate case, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which hinged on a technical question of whether the EPA has the power to regulate the electricity industry as a whole, or just individual power plants. See the article : Illinois Real Estate: Peoria, Tazewell, Woodford Home Purchases for July 31st. . The court sided with coal companies and Republican-led states, ruling that if Congress had wanted to give the EPA the power to regulate the entire industry, it would have said so.
It was not the first time in recent history that the court has challenged the authority of a federal scientific agency. In September 2021, the court overturned a moratorium on evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And in January, the judges rejected a major employer mask mandate issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. But the conservative majority took it one step further in West Virginia v. EPA, laying down a new legal test: the “key questions” doctrine, which states that agencies need explicit Congressional approval to implement important rules.
The ruling ties the hands of the EPA at a pivotal time, disregarding decades of climate science on the looming threat of global warming, said David Doniger, head of the climate and clean energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council , an environmental group in New York. City.
US Supreme Court hinders EPA’s authority on climate emissions
US Supreme Court hinders EPA’s authority on climate emissions
Looking ahead, Doniger expects the EPA to respond with a different kind of regulation targeting the performance of individual power plants, which could also accelerate the shift to clean energy. But the key questions doctrine will reverberate through the legal system for years to come as individuals, corporations and states try to challenge federal rules and regulations.
It’s part of a broader trend. Republican politicians have for years criticized regulations created by “unelected bureaucrats.” At the end of his term, Trump issued an executive order that could have fired hundreds of thousands of government employees, including scientists, from the protection of the civil service so that they could be fired more easily. Biden withdrew that order, but the issue remains under tension in conservative circles.
The problem, says Blake Emerson, who studies administrative law at the University of California, Los Angeles, is that the civil service is exactly where science enters government. It’s designed this way: Congress doesn’t have the expertise or the political capacity to draft detailed regulations, so lawmakers pass broadly worded laws that are often intentionally vague, leaving the details to the experts. Now those experts risk being pressured from both sides — losing their authority and becoming more vulnerable to the whims of elected officials.
“My expectation going forward is that this court will limit the independence of science-trained officials and increase the powers of political officials,” Emerson said. “This is a dangerous time for scientific expertise and science-based policy making within government.”
Elections under the gavel
For many, however, a greater danger is the electoral institutions and democracy itself. It involves a system that allows lawmakers in individual states to reconfigure constituencies. Politicians on both the left and right have long manipulated or ‘gerrymanded’ district maps in their favor — for example, by bringing unwanted voters together in a few oddly shaped districts so that the opposition can claim fewer seats in the last election.
Over the past decade, scientists have developed statistical methods for assessing whether a particular political map is fair, and the results of that work have featured prominently in numerous lawsuits. The question now is whether courts should be able to listen to that evidence and overrule state legislators who created gerrymandered maps.
Protesters at the US Supreme Court protest against Gerrymandering. Credit: Evelyn Hockstein/The Washington Post/Getty
In 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court declined to intervene after hearing a challenge to gerrymandered cards in North Carolina. “Excessive bias in districts leads to results that appear reasonably unjust” and “incompatible with democratic principles,” the court ruled. But it also noted that “partisan gerrymandering claims pose political questions beyond the reach of federal courts.” As such, the Supreme Court has largely left the issue of gerrymandering to state courts. But on the same day that the court issued a climate ruling in late June, it agreed to hear a case, Moore v. Harper, brought by Republican lawmakers in North Carolina. The North Carolina Supreme Court had ruled that the maps prepared by lawmakers for this year’s election were unconstitutional, based on statistical evidence that the Republican-controlled legislature had gerrymanded the electoral districts. But lawmakers now state that state courts should not have any power over the legislature when it comes to federal elections.
The Supreme Court could hear pleas in the case next month. Jonathan Mattingly, a statistician at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, whose analysis was aware of the court proceedings leading up to Moore v. Harper, is hopeful. Even in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court did not question the statistical evidence, he says.
And to explain why federal courts need not intervene, the court’s majority opinion specifically mentioned the role of state courts in overseeing reclassification disputes. However, at least three members of the current court have expressed support for the latest claim from North Carolina lawmakers, and at least four voted to pass the case. If the conservative majority sided with the plaintiffs in Moore v. Harper, it could remove the last legal check on the power of state legislators to shape election results.
With 30 state legislators controlled by Republicans, this would allow the party to manipulate federal elections and regain a majority in Congress and possibly the presidency, said Charles Fried, a law professor at Harvard University who serves as Solicitor General. served under former President Ronald Reagan. If that happens, he adds, “You really wouldn’t have a way out.”
For Gertner, this is a break-the-glass moment that must transcend party politics. In 2021, she served on a White House committee evaluating how to reform the Supreme Court, and she argues that the time has come for change. However, there are few options. Introducing term limits to shorten the life of a Supreme Court majority would likely require a constitutional amendment. That is impractical given the partisan divisions in Congress and in the states. But increasing the court, which dilutes the power of the current majority, could be done legally, she says.
That is also a difficult task. While many Democrats are calling for an immediate extension of the court, President Joe Biden has so far refused to support the idea. Gertner, however, remains hopeful about reform, arguing that the Supreme Court’s ultra-conservative blow could set off a backlash. “We’re on the brink, but I don’t think we’re past it.”
Is Science Po A good university?
Sciences Po continues to be a top university in the social sciences in the 2021 QS World University Rankings by subject, maintaining the second place globally in "Politics & International Studies" for the second year. In this world ranking, released on March 3, 2021, Sciences Po is just behind Harvard University.
What is Science Po known for? Sciences Po has been training decision makers in the public and private sectors for 140 years. Notable alumni of Sciences Po include heads of state, government and international organizations, and leading figures in business and finance, academia, journalism, and the arts.
Why is Sciences Po a good school?
Sciences Po hosts 13,000 students, half of them international, representing 150 countries. International education, excellent academics, promising career prospects, vibrant student life, influential networkâ Discover ten of the many reasons why students from all over the world choose a Sciences Po degree.
Is Sciences Po internationally recognized?
The education and degrees offered at Sciences Po meet international standards and are recognized by the most renowned universities.
Is Sciences Po difficult to get into?
Nevertheless, Sciences Po maintains an admission rate that meets the institution’s desire to maintain selectivity of admission, with an overall acceptance rate of 18% (17% in 2018, 19% in 2017). In 2019, 46% of admitted undergraduate college students applied through the international procedure.
Is Sciences Po Paris a grande ecole?
Sciences Po Aix is a Grand Ecole with admission through competitive examination or application, through a demanding selection procedure. It is a member of the Conférence des Grandes Ecoles, an organization for France’s most prestigious academic institutions.
Is the Sorbonne a grande ecole? La Sorbonne is not even a Grande Ecole.
What is the difference between Grande Ecole and university?
While universities are seen as mainstream institutions, grandes ecoles are seen as elite institutions (they represent less than 5% of the student population) that guarantee success in life and nurture the top French civil servants with talent pool, advanced professional and technical training in various fields of …
Is Sciences Po a private university?
The Paris Institute of Political Studies (French: Institut d’études politiques de Paris, commonly known as Sciences Po [sjÉ Ì s po] or Sciences Po Paris), is a public research university, with the status of grande école and grande école etablissement , located in Paris, France, with further campuses in Dijon, Le Havre, Menton, …
Is Sciences Po internationally recognized?
The education and degrees offered at Sciences Po meet international standards and are recognized by the most renowned universities.
How much is Sciences Po for international students? In 2020-21, the average tuition fee for French and European students at Sciences Po was: 5,350 euros at bachelor level. 6,750 euros at HBO level.
Is Sciences Po Paris prestigious?
Sciences Po is considered to be one of the most prestigious higher education institutions, a reputation that is also reinforced among the international community.
How hard is it to get into Sciences Po as an American?
Nevertheless, Sciences Po maintains an admission rate that meets the institution’s desire to maintain selectivity of admission, with an overall acceptance rate of 18% (17% in 2018, 19% in 2017). In 2019, 46% of admitted undergraduate college students applied through the international procedure.
How hard is it to get into Sciences Po Paris?
Nevertheless, Sciences Po maintains an admission rate that meets the institution’s desire to maintain selectivity of admission, with an overall acceptance rate of 18% (17% in 2018, 19% in 2017). In 2019, 46% of admitted undergraduate college students applied through the international procedure.
How do I get to Science Po in Paris? The four assessments for admission are broken down as follows:
- Grades obtained on the French Baccalaureate or a foreign equivalent.
- Grades obtained over the last 3 years of secondary school; progress made and comments from teachers.
- Three essays that demonstrate the candidate’s background, interests and motivations.
- An interview.
What grades do I need to get into Sciences Po?
Academic Excellence Sciences Po requires a minimum undergraduate grade point average. Applicants with averages below the minimum required level will automatically be considered ineligible. No exception will be made.
What is the acceptance rate for Sciences Po?
