Do Violent Video Games Harm Children? Comparing the Scientific Amicus Curiae “Experts” in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association

Deana Pollard Sacks[*], Brad J. Bushman[**], and Craig A. Anderson[***]

Introduction

In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n,[1]  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.[2]   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,[3]  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.

State Law Holocaust-Era Art Claims and Federal Executive Power

Jennifer Anglim Kreder[*]

[download pdf]

Doctrines of judicial restraint in international cases take many forms, but they all have at their heart a concern about the proper role of courts, be they federal or state.  This Article explores the proper role of courts in deciding state law conversion claims for art stolen or subject to forced or duress sale during the Nazi era.  Many presume, incorrectly, that such claims must be precluded by separation of powers and federalism doctrines.  This Article demonstrates the inaccuracy of such presumptions.

The Constitutional Politics of the Tea Party Movement

We would like to conclude our series on the constitutional politics of the Tea Party movement by offering a recording of the panel discussion that gave rise to the four essays published in the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy. The panel convened for the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools held in San Francisco on January 6, 2011. In this discussion, Colloquy contributors Sanford Levinson, Randy Barnett, Jared Goldstein, and Ilya Somin, along with Nathaniel Persily, explore the emergence of the Tea Party movement and offer perspectives on its history, membership, rhetoric, and ambitions. 

You can listen to the recording below or here.