It wasn’t until 1962 that psychologists were allowed by U.S. courts to serve as expert witnesses on mental illness. In the case of Jenkins v. United States, in his original trial, defendant Vincent E. Jenkins mounted an insanity defense after committing a sexual assault, and psychologists provided evidence showing that he was having a psychotic episode at the time of the attack. But the trial court would not allow the psychologists’ input, ruling that they could not testify about mental illness because they lacked medical training.
When the case was appealed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit received an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief from APA—the first the association ever filed. In it, APA provided evidence that psychologists have the education and training to properly assess and diagnose mental illness, and the D.C. Circuit agreed. From then on, psychologists had the critical sanction they needed to testify about mental illness in criminal cases.
Even before APA began its amicus program, psychologists had filed such briefs independently, most famously in Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that ended racial segregation in public schools, thanks to research by psychologists Kenneth Clark, PhD, and Mamie Phipps Clark, PhD.
It wasn’t until Jenkins, however, that APA’s amicus program was formally developed, becoming an essential tool for informing the courts with the best psychological research. Along with Jenkins, APA has now weighed in on 200 federal and state cases on topics as wide-ranging as child abuse, hospital privileges, disability rights, sexual orientation and affirmative action. (For nearly all of the 10 cases described below, APA had first filed several briefs in different courts at different levels.)
“APA’s amicus program is a great example of how we can use psychological research and knowledge to address critical societal issues, and in so doing, elevate the public’s understanding of psychology and what we do as a field,” says APA Chief Executive Officer Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD.
Over the years, APA’s amicus briefs have influenced judicial decisions that ultimately changed American laws. The Supreme Court has specifically cited APA’s briefs in 23 of its decisions, as have various lower courts in 20 decisions. In a 2004 survey in the Journal of Law & Politics, 70 Supreme Court clerks who served between 1966 and 2001 said that APA was among the few friends of the court whose briefs they actually read.
Simply put, APA amicus briefs present courts with “the best psychological science the discipline has to offer, based on our field’s peer-reviewed research,” says APA General Counsel Deanne M. Ottaviano, JD.
Here are 10 of the most influential court cases APA has informed with psychological science.
Blue Shield of Virginia v. McCready, 1982
Mental health parity
The case: Blue Shield of Virginia denied Carol McCready’s insurance claims for treatment by a psychologist, saying that her policy only covered seeing a psychiatrist. McCready brought an antitrust class action suit against the insurance company, arguing that limiting the plan’s mental health coverage to treatment by psychiatrists resulted in higher costs and a diminished choice of providers. The district court dismissed the case, the 4th Circuit reversed it, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take it on.
APA’s evidence:
- Psychologists are fully trained and qualified to provide mental health services.
- Blue Shield and physicians have long entertained anti-competitive policies toward psychologists, resulting in increased costs to consumers.
The ruling: Psychologists can bill for their services independent of and on an equal footing with psychiatrists—and can sue if insurers reject their bills.
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 1989
Gender discrimination at work
The case: Ann Hopkins sued her employer, the accounting firm Price Waterhouse, for denying her a partnership because of what she claimed was discriminative gender stereotyping. The firm countered that although she was qualified, they declined to promote her because she had “interpersonal problems,” which they identified as the need to wear more makeup and to walk and talk in a more feminine manner, among other issues.
The federal district court ruled in favor of Hopkins, finding that Price Waterhouse failed to show she would have been denied partnership without the presence of gender discrimination. Price Waterhouse appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
APA’s evidence:
- Empirical research on sex stereotyping has been conducted over many decades and is generally accepted in the scientific community.
- Stereotyping under certain conditions can create discriminatory consequences for stereotyped groups, including women.
- The conditions that promote stereotyping were present in Hopkins’s work setting.
- Methods are available to monitor and reduce the effects of stereotyping, but Price Waterhouse did not use them.
The ruling: Gender stereotypes are not a legitimate basis for employment decisions under Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
Jaffee v. Redmond, 1996
Protecting psychotherapist-patient privilege
The case: Illinois police officer Mary Lu Redmond shot and killed a man in the line of duty. She then sought counseling from a licensed clinical social worker. The victim’s estate sued Redmond for wrongful death and asked to see her therapist’s records as part of the evidence. When Redmond refused, the jury awarded damages to the plaintiffs, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit reversed that decision. The plaintiffs then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.
APA’s evidence:
- Psychotherapist-patient privilege should be regarded as a privilege under common law.
- Common-law principles strongly support recognition of this privilege because psychotherapy patients expect their sessions will be confidential, an essential element of successful therapy. APA also noted that society has a strong interest in fostering the psychotherapy relationship and in protecting patient privacy and that the benefits of the psychotherapist-patient privilege outweigh its costs.
The ruling: Psychotherapists have a duty to maintain the confidentiality of patient sessions, and therefore courts cannot compel therapists to release patient records. (An exception is that a number of states require therapists to warn appropriate parties if a patient threatens them with bodily harm.) The court’s decision supported the arguments presented in APA’s brief.
Atkins v. Virginia, 2002
Rights of people with mental disabilities
The case: Daryl Renard Atkins, 18, and his accomplice, William Jones, robbed, abducted and then murdered Eric Nesbitt near a convenience store in Virginia. Atkins was convicted and sentenced to death, though a psychologist’s evaluation found that he met the criteria for mild mental retardation.
In a second hearing, the Virginia Supreme Court again sentenced Atkins to death, relying on a standard determined by an earlier case that found that people with “mental retardation” (now referred to as “intellectual disability”) are eligible for execution. The U.S. Supreme Court decided to review the case, given that many state legislatures were beginning to abandon this standard.
Joined by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and others, APA refiled a brief it had filed in a 2001 case, McCarver v. North Carolina, in support of a defendant with an intellectual disability.
APA’s evidence:
- There is a clear national consensus against imposing the death penalty on people with intellectual disabilities.
- Executing people with intellectual disabilities offends Americans’ shared moral values.
- Defendants with intellectual disabilities are less culpable than others because of the effects of their intellectual disability.
- Having an intellectual disability is not a condition that is the defendant’s fault or something that he or she is responsible for.
- Intellectual disability can be reliably diagnosed through professionally accepted standards.
The ruling: Executing people with intellectual disabilities constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. In its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court cited many of the arguments in APA’s brief, which it then used in a number of subsequent cases, including Hall v. Florida (2014) and Moore v. Texas (2017).
Lawrence v. Texas, 2003
The right to private sexual conduct
The case: The U.S. Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of a Texas law prohibiting sodomy between same-sex couples. APA submitted a brief and was joined by the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and the Texas chapter of NASW.
APA’s evidence:
- Homosexuality is common, is generally not chosen and is resistant to change.
- Homosexuality is not a disorder and does not affect a person’s ability to contribute to society.
- Suppressing sexual intimacy among same-sex partners would deprive gay men and lesbians of the opportunity to participate in fundamental aspects of human experience.
- Anti-sodomy statutes like those in Texas reinforce prejudice, discrimination and violence against gay men and lesbians.
The ruling: The Texas anti-sodomy law was unconstitutional because it violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment by denying same-sex couples their right to engage in private sexual conduct without government intervention.
Roper v. Simmons, 2005
Juveniles and the death penalty
The case: Christopher Simmons, 17, and a younger friend broke into the home of Shirley Crook, tied her up and blindfolded her, drove her to a state park and threw her off a bridge, and she drowned.
Simmons received the death penalty, but the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case to determine whether the death penalty for juvenile defendants in general is constitutional. APA, along with the Missouri Psychological Association, filed an amicus brief to help the court resolve whether the recognized purposes of the death penalty—deterrence and retribution—should apply to 16- and 17-year-olds as a group.
APA’s evidence:
- Because the adolescent brain is still developing, psychologists—and therefore the courts—cannot reliably predict whether a young person will continue to pose a danger to others.
- Adolescent characteristics include less mature decision-making, impulsivity, risk-taking, peer orientation and the tendency to avoid thinking about long-term consequences.
- MRI studies suggest that the brain continues to develop through young adulthood in areas that may bear on adolescent decision-making.
The ruling: The execution of minors constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The court’s majority used several of APA’s arguments to decide the case, which overruled a previous federal ruling allowing the execution of offenders age 16 or older.
Warney v. State of New York, 2011
False confessions
The case: Douglas Warney, a man with an intellectual disability and AIDS-related dementia, was convicted of murder solely based on his own false confession to the crime. After serving a lengthy prison term, he was exonerated by DNA testing. A lower court found that he was not eligible for reparations because he had caused his own conviction by falsely confessing.
APA urged the lower court to consider the body of research that had developed since the state statute at issue in the case had been enacted. The New York Court of Appeals accepted the case and asked for a full briefing.
APA’s evidence:
- Situational factors, such as the length of an interrogation and lying by interrogators about having evidence of guilt, and dispositional factors, such as mental illness and low IQ, can contribute to false confessions.
- Police, judges and jurors have difficulty assessing the truth of confessions, and false confessions can overcome other evidence of innocence.
- Research on false confessions had developed significantly since 1998, and this body of knowledge could help fact finders do their jobs by allowing expert testimony on this research.
The ruling: The New York appellate court unanimously concluded that Warney’s allegations regarding his severe mental impairment were known by the police department at the time of his false confession and, if proven, could be considered circumstances that would allow him the right to receive reparations for his long prison stay. A New York Times article published at the time of the opinion credited the APA brief with having a significant impact on the decision.
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 2013, 2016
Affirmative action
The case: Abigail Fisher, a white Texas resident, contended that she was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin because of the school’s policy of considering race as a factor in admissions.
When the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the case in 2013, it was to determine whether to uphold Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 case that held that undergraduate institutions could use race as an admissions criterion. In 2013, the court ruled that race was a permissible factor in university admissions in limited cases that passed a strict review. In a second case in 2016, the court upheld a lower court finding that the university’s use of race in admissions met the court’s strict test, and affirmed the university’s criteria.
APA’s evidence:
- Diversity in higher education promotes harmonious and productive intergroup relations, and such relations are in the government’s interest because they improve the climate of the nation.
- The benefits of diversity in higher education require a critical mass of students from different backgrounds.
- Subconscious racial bias continues to interfere with the effective education of non-minority students.
The ruling: Race can still be used to determine college admissions decisions under the terms of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015
Same-sex marriage
The case: James Obergefell and John Arthur were legally married in Maryland, but they resided in Ohio, where same-sex marriage was outlawed. Arthur, who was terminally ill, sought to have Obergefell identified as his surviving spouse when his death certificate would be issued.
Between 2012 and 2014, plaintiffs in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee filed cases that culminated in Obergefell. After all the district courts ruled for the plaintiffs, the rulings were appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which held that these state bans on same-sex marriage were constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court then agreed to review the case.
APA’s evidence:
- Homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality, is generally not chosen and is highly resistant to change.
- Same-sex relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects, and excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage denies them social, psychological and health benefits.
- There is no scientific basis for concluding that same-sex couples are unfit parents or that children of same-sex couples are any less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted than those of heterosexual couples.
- Denying same-sex couples access to marriage constitutes stigma.
The ruling: Same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. The court cited APA’s brief in discussing the evolution of marriage as an institution and of the rights of gays and lesbians over time, finding that new insights about marriage and relationships “have strengthened, not weakened, the institution of marriage.”
People v. Boone, 2017
Cross-race identification
The case: Otis Boone, a black man in Brooklyn, New York, was convicted of two robberies solely on the testimony of the two white victims. The defense requested that the jury receive instructions concerning research findings on cross-race identification, namely, that “some people have greater difficulty in accurately identifying members of a different race than they do in identifying members of their own race.” The request was denied, and Boone was initially sentenced to 25 years in prison. In 2017, the New York Court of Appeals granted him a retrial, and APA submitted a brief.
APA’s evidence:
- Eyewitness identification in general, and cross-race identification in particular, has strong limitations, according to psychological research.
- The failure to give juries instruction on cross-race identification research creates a risk of wrongful conviction.
The ruling: Boone was acquitted on retrial in proceedings that included the evidence in APA’s brief. The court cited APA’s brief in its decision.
In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.
