Courts often rely on the testimony of experts to understand arguments and implications in education rights litigation. But expert testimony, and statistical testimony in particular, can offer a false sense of security for the unwary. This article uses expert testimony offered in two recent desegregation cases to consider whether sufficient protections are presently in place to protect judges, who are usually statistical novices, from being confused or misled by experts. These case studies illustrate how, without the use of additional protections, courts can be misled. Following this examination, we offer suggestions intended to improve judges' comprehension of expert testimony. At its most general level, this article addresses the role of researchers in presenting important educational issues in ways that speak clearly to policy-makers. (Contains 4 figures, 2 tables, and 5 notes.)