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