The misuse of social science in the courts usually refers to the misinterpretation of information, the use of inaccurate studies, or the use of studies that do not address the issues decided. However, accuracy and relevancy of research are often not the key questions. Much depends upon the type of use. For example, even though most of the material in the Brandeis briefs was questionable, it was not misused because the purpose was to bolster a presumption of the validity of the statutes attacked. Secondly, the complexity of judicial decisionmaking often involves information which appears in footnotes, raising the question of whether there was any use at all. Furthermore, much that can be classified as misuse of social science occurs in minority opinions where it is not used by the actual decisionmakers in the case. Not only must the type of use be determined in order to ascertain whether a misuse has or has not occurred, but also the type of facts. Facts can be case facts, social facts, or supporting case facts. Each has a particular key problem concerning misuse. Debate abounds around the issue of how courts obtain research, especially the social facts used by courts when making law. Besides the misuse of research by judges discussed above, there remain the ethical considerations involved in lawyers and social scientists working together in the courts. When lawyers and social scientists do not attempt to give a balanced presentation of social facts, misuse occurs. Since social facts are involved in the creation of law, misuse of research in this area is of much greater magnitude than whether or not someone wins or loses a case.