From the New York Times (use "biol203" for the username and password)

Idealistic lawyers and idealistic scientists often describe themselves as
engaging in a search for truth. The scientists follow the scientific
method. They state their hypotheses, describe the ways they test them,
present their findings — and wait for another researcher to prove them
wrong. Lawyers’ practice is built on the idea that the best way to shake
the truth out of a complex dispute is for advocates on each side to argue
it, as vigorously as they can, in front of an impartial judge or jury.

These approaches work more or less well on their own. But when a legal
issue hinges on questions of science, they can clash. And the collision can
resound all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Last Wednesday, the nine justices heard arguments in the first global
warming case to come before the court. Massachusetts, 11 other states and
several cities and environmental groups are saying that the federal
Environmental Protection Agency has ignored the requirements of the Clean
Air Act and otherwise shirked its responsibilities by failing to regulate
emissions of heat-trapping gases, chiefly carbon dioxide.

To read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/science/05law.html