Scientific and social scientific evidence has informed judicial decisions and the making of constitutional law for decades, but for much of U.S. history it has also served as a rhetorical device to justify inequality. It is only in recent years that scientific and statistical research has helped redress discrimination. Scientific Evidence and Equal Protection of the Law provides unique insights into the judicial process and scientific inquiry by examining major decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, advocacy efforts, and the nature of science itself. Angelo Ancheta discusses leading equal protection cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and recent litigation involving race-related affirmative action, gender inequality, and discrimination based on sexual orientation. He also examines less prominent, but equally compelling cases, including McCleskey v. Kemp, which involved statistical evidence that the death penalty was disproportionately used when the victim was white, and Castaneda v. Partida, which ruled on the exclusion of Latinos from grand jury selection in Texas. For each case, Ancheta explores the tensions between scientific findings and constitutional values. Reliance on science in constitutional interpretation remains controversial. Some scholars and members of the judiciary argue for the limited use of scientific evidence, while others advocate for more extensive use. This book surveys and explains this conflict and also suggests changes in the ways that judicial decisions are made that could help to remedy some of the current deficiencies.