Judge Brewer in Muller v. Oregon paved the way for social science to play a more active role in court, eventually revolutionizing American constitutional politics. Today, this trend has developed into a substantial, sometimes critical, and frequently controversial component of the legal process. Some of the problems which have appeared are implicit in the inherent differences between social science and the law. Other problems, perhaps more fundamental, relate to the administration and application of social science research. Although courts today are much more likely to scrutinize the quality of the social science research presented to them, courts still use this research in ways social scientists do not necessarily consider appropriate. The adversary system encourages lawyers to manipulate or use social science data with less than scrupulous concern for scientific methods. In the final analysis, the Brandeis brief remains the court's best link to social science. This suggests that counsel is ultimately responsible for insuring that the courts are informed of conflicting social science findings. Attorneys, however, often have limited means to locate relevant findings. As a result, much of the disappointment with social science stems from the mistaken notion that it is a more or less statistical science like the physical sciences. Social science may at times mesh well with the needs of the law, but should strive, nonetheless, to maintain its own identity. Footnotes are provided.