Speaking of bad information, in recent years a number of Supreme Court observers have noted that a disturbingly high percentage of opinions coming out of the court have relied on data, statistics and expert testimony that’s just plain wrong. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s reference in a 2003 opinion to a claim that sex offenders have a recidivism rate of 80 percent or more, for example, was not only the basis for the court’s ruling that particular case, but has since been reiterated by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and more than 100 lower-court opinions, and has provided justification for laws from state legislatures across the country. It just isn’t true . In Glossip v. Gross, the court also relied on false expert testimony about lethal injection protocols. In Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, the court ruled to allow cops to set up roadblocks to perform sobriety checkpoints, despite acknowledging that such tactics were a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court just determined that the public safety value was more important, but unfortunately, in undertaking that balancing test, the court relied on misleading statistics about drunken-driving fatalities. In fact, law professor and former police officer Seth Stoughton has pointed out that Supreme Court opinions on important policing issues from searches and seizures to lethal force often rely on myths and misconceptions about law enforcement. The court has long misunderstood how drug-sniffing dogs are used. And a ProPublica review of Supreme Court opinions also found a number of critical errors of fact. What should be done about cases in which we later learn that a Supreme Court decision was based on bad information? As a justice, would you push for the court to revisit those cases? What would you do personally if you later learned that one of your opinions relied on data or statistics you later learned were false or misleading? What steps do you take to make sure that doesn’t happen in the first place?