In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n, video game merchants present a First Amendment challenge to a California law regulating sales of certain violent video games to children less than eighteen years of age. A primary issue presented to the Supreme Court is whether California’s interest in protecting children from serious psychological or neurological harm is sufficiently compelling to overcome First Amendment scrutiny. This Essay briefly summarizes the California law and the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, which held that the law violates the First Amendment and questioned the strength of the scientific evidence used to support the claim of harm to minors. This Essay then compares amicus curiae scientific experts on both sides of the case and presents an original quantitative analysis of the experts’ relevant expertise in the psychological effects of violence and media effects based on the briefs’ authors’ and signatories' published scholarship. This Essay concludes that if the Supreme Court relies on scientific evidence and expert opinion to reach its decision, it should consider the source of the evidence in deciding what weight the amicus curiae briefs deserve.