The Supreme Court is increasingly relying on academic expertise to shape its most consequential decisions, according to new research examining the court's citation patterns over the past decade. The study reveals a transformation in how justices approach constitutional interpretation, moving beyond traditional legal precedent to incorporate scholarly analysis on historical practices, empirical claims, and constitutional theory.

The research, conducted by Adam Feldman as part of his Empirical SCOTUS series, analyzed an original dataset of 103 scholar briefs and over 2,300 individual scholars cited by the Supreme Court between the 2015-16 and 2024-25 terms. The findings illuminate how academic influence has evolved from supplementary support to a central component of the court's decision-making process.

The most striking example of this trend appears in *Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization*, the 2022 decision that overturned the constitutional right to abortion. The justices cited six different briefs submitted by scholars to justify their opinions in *Dobbs*, representing an extraordinary level of academic citation for a single case. This intensive marshaling of scholarly expertise exemplifies what researchers describe as a broader transformation in Supreme Court practice.

Following *Dobbs*, three other high-profile cases each drew citations to four scholar briefs: *Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard*, which addressed affirmative action in college admissions; *Jesner v. Arab Bank*, concerning corporate liability under international law; and *New York State Pistol & Rifle Association v. Bruen*, which expanded Second Amendment rights to carry firearms in public.

The research reveals that scholars' briefs occupy a distinct space in Supreme Court jurisprudence. Unlike party briefs, which advance partisan positions for specific litigants, academic briefs purport to offer disinterested expertise backed by scholarly authority that practicing attorneys cannot replicate. These submissions provide justices with historical context, empirical data, and constitutional analysis that extends beyond traditional legal arguments.

However, the distribution of scholar brief citations across cases remains remarkably uneven. While certain landmark decisions feature multiple academic citations, the vast majority of Supreme Court cases proceed without any reference to scholarly briefs. This pattern suggests that citation of such briefs remains the exception rather than the rule, although their prominence is growing, particularly in major civil liberties cases that tend to generate the most public attention.

Constitutional law emerges as the dominant category for scholar brief citations, accounting for a significant portion of the academic submissions referenced by the court. This concentration reflects the justices' apparent appetite for scholarly expertise when interpreting foundational constitutional principles, particularly in cases that require historical analysis or involve questions of original meaning.

The research findings raise important questions about the role of academic expertise in judicial decision-making. While scholarly briefs can provide valuable historical context and empirical evidence, their expanding influence prompts debate about whether these submissions genuinely inform constitutional interpretation or merely provide scholarly backing for predetermined conclusions.

The trend toward increased reliance on academic briefs reflects broader changes in legal education and scholarship. Modern legal academics increasingly engage with constitutional interpretation through sophisticated historical research and empirical analysis, producing scholarship that directly addresses questions facing the court. This development has created new opportunities for academic voices to influence judicial outcomes.

The implications extend beyond individual cases to the broader legitimacy of Supreme Court decision-making. When justices cite multiple scholarly sources, they can present their conclusions as grounded in academic consensus rather than personal judicial philosophy. This approach may enhance public perception of judicial neutrality, though critics argue it can also obscure the role of ideological preferences in constitutional interpretation.

The research also reveals patterns in which types of cases attract scholarly attention. High-profile constitutional disputes, particularly those involving civil liberties and fundamental rights, consistently draw more academic briefs than routine statutory interpretation cases. This pattern suggests that scholars view certain Supreme Court decisions as particularly important for shaping constitutional doctrine.

Looking ahead, the trend toward increased citation of academic briefs appears likely to continue. As legal scholarship becomes more specialized and empirically sophisticated, justices may find scholarly analysis increasingly valuable for addressing complex constitutional questions. The challenge will be ensuring that reliance on academic expertise enhances rather than substitutes for rigorous judicial reasoning.

The study's findings underscore the evolving relationship between the academy and the judiciary. While traditional legal practice emphasizes precedent and statutory text, the modern Supreme Court increasingly incorporates scholarly expertise into its constitutional analysis. This development reflects both the sophistication of contemporary legal scholarship and the justices' recognition that complex constitutional questions may benefit from academic insight.

As the Supreme Court continues to grapple with fundamental questions of constitutional interpretation, the role of academic briefs in shaping judicial outcomes will likely remain a subject of ongoing debate and scholarly attention.