Is Supreme Court legitimacy affected by the way justices explain their decisions to the public? Existing work shows a link between legitimacy and case outcomes but often overlooks the impact of opinion content. Using a novel experimental design, the author measures the effect of three different types of judicial arguments on public support for the Court. The results suggest that the rationales used by justices in their opinions can affect institutional legitimacy, but to a lesser degree than conventional wisdom suggests. Taken together with other recent legitimacy research, these findings have important implications and set the stage for follow-up research.
BairdVanessa A.2001. “Building Institutional Legitimacy: The Role of Procedural Justice.” Political Research Quarterly54:333-54.
2.
BairdVanessa A.GanglAmy. 2006. “Shattering the Myth of Legality: The Impact of the Media’s Framing of Supreme Court Procedures on Perceptions of Fairness.” Political Psychology27:597-613.
3.
BakerThomas E.2004. “Constitutional Theory in a Nutshell.” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal13:57-172.
4.
BickelAlexander M.1962. The Least Dangerous Branch. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5.
BobbittPhilip. 1982. Constitutional Fate: Theory of the Constitution. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
7.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
8.
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
9.
CaldeiraGregory A.GibsonJames L.1992. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science43:635-64.
10.
CaseyGregory. 1974. “The Supreme Court and Myth: An Empirical Investigation.” Law and Society Review8:385-419.
11.
ChemerinskyErwin. 2002. “The Rhetoric of Constitutional Law.” Michigan Law Review100:2008-35.
12.
CohenJacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
ConkleDaniel O.1985.“The Legitimacy of Judicial Review in Individual Rights Cases: Michael Perry’s Constitutional Theory and Beyond.” Minnesota Law Review69: 587-588.
14.
EastonDavid. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley.
15.
EpsteinLeeKnightJack. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
GibsonJames L.1989. “Understandings of Justice: Institutional Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Political Tolerance.” Law and Society Review23:469-96.
18.
GibsonJames L.1991. “Institutional Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Compliance with Supreme Court Decisions: A Question of Causality.” Law and Society Review25:631-35.
19.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.BairdVanessa. 1998. “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts.” American Political Science Review92:343-58.
20.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester Kenyatta. 2003a. “Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science47:354-67.
21.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester Kenyatta. 2003b. “The Supreme Court and the U.S. Presidential Election of 2000.” British Journal of Political Science33:535-56.
22.
GrosskopfAnkeMondakJeffery J.1998. “Do Attitudes toward Specific Supreme Court Decisions Matter? The Impact of Webster and Texas v. Johnson on Public Confidence in the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly51:633-54.
23.
HandLearned. 1958. The Bill of Rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
HibbingJohn R.Theiss-MorseElizabeth. 1995. “Process Preferences and American Politics: What the People Want Government to Be.” American Political Science Review95:145-53.
25.
HoekstraValerie J.SegalJeffrey A.1996. “The Shepherding of Local Public Opinion: The Supreme Court and Lamb’s Chapel.” Journal of Politics58:1079-102.
26.
HumeRobert J.2006. “The Use of Rhetorical Sources by the U.S. Supreme Court.” Law & Society Review40:817-44.
27.
KritzerHerbert M.2001. “The Impact of Bush v. Gore on Public Perceptions and Knowledge of the Supreme Court.” Judicature85:32-38.
28.
MarmorAndrei. 2005. Interpretation and Legal Theory. Oxford, UK: Hart.
29.
MondakJeffery J.1991. “Substantive and Procedural Aspects of Supreme Court Decisions and Determinants of Institutional Approval.” American Politics Quarterly19:174-88.
30.
New York Times. 2001. “554 Law Professors Say.” January13, A7.
31.
NicholsonStephen P.HowardRobert M.2003. “Framing Support for the Supreme Court in the Aftermath of Bush v. Gore.” Journal of Politics65:676-95.
32.
PetersonR. A.2001. On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research: Insights from a Second Order Meta- Analysis. Journal of Consumer Research28:450-61.
33.
PetrickMichael. 1968. “The Supreme Court and Authority Acceptance.” Western Political Quarterly21:5-19.
34.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 510 U.S. 1309 (1992).
35.
SchebJohn M.IILyonsWilliam. 2000. “The Myth of Legality and Popular Support for the Supreme Court.” Social Science Quarterly81:928-40.
36.
SchebJohn M.IILyonsWilliam. 2001. “Judicial Behavior and Public Opinion: Popular Expectations Regarding the Factors that Influence Supreme Court Decisions.” Political Behavior23:181-94.
37.
TylerTom R.MitchellGregory. 1994. “Legitimacy and Empowerment of Discretionary Legal Authority: The United States Supreme Court and Abortion Rights.” Duke Law Journal43:703-815.
38.
TylerTom R.RasinskiKenneth. 1991. “Legitimacy and the Acceptance of Unpopular Supreme Court Decisions: A Question of Causality.” Law and Society Review25: 621-30.
39.
U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary. 2006. Hearings to Consider the Nomination of Samuel A. Alito. 109th Cong., 1st sess., January9.
40.
WechslerHerbert. 1959. “Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law.” Harvard Law Review73: 1-35.
41.
WellsMichael L.2007. “Sociological Legitimacy in Supreme Court Opinions.” Washington & Lee Law Review64:1011-1070.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
