Abstract
Courts engaged in constitutional scrutiny analysis often con-sider statistical evidence to link government ends and means. Courts and litigants generally rely on shallow reasoning when applying this evidence, particularly when causal relationships are at issue. We ar-gue that courts should increasingly adopt, and adapt, elements of causal reasoning developed in the social sciences. We propose a flex-ible framework for applying causal evidence in scrutiny analysis that parallels traditional tiers of constitutional scrutiny. This framework offers a Socratic-style narrative approach to causal evidence in scru-tiny analysis—one based on qualitative concepts that do not require specialized statistical training to apply. This expanded legal toolkit gives needed nuance to causal reasoning and increased alignment be-tween evidence and tiers of scrutiny. Applying this framework to ongo-ing and historic cases suggests new lines of evaluation and inquiry that clarify evidentiary requirements and support for constitutional analy-sis.
Recommended Citation
Lingwall, Jeff and Vos, Michelle
(2022)
"Causal Narratives and Constitutional Scrutiny,"
University of Memphis Law Review: Vol. 52:
Iss.
3, Article 2.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/um-law-review/vol52/iss3/2
Archival Statement
This item was created or digitized prior to April 24, 2026, or is a reproduction of legacy media created before that date. It is preserved in its original, unmodified state specifically for research, reference, or historical recordkeeping. This material is part of a digital archival collection and is not utilized for current University instruction, programs, or active public communication. In accordance with the ADA Title II Final Rule, the University Libraries provides accessible versions of archival materials upon request. To request an accommodation for this item, please submit an accessibility request form.