While the Supreme Court’s legitimacy is generally considered essential to its influence, scholars continue to debate whether the Court’s decisions affect individuals’ assessments of it. The last week of the 2013 term provides an unusual opportunity to evaluate these issues because the Court made a conservative decision concerning the Voting Rights Act (VRA) only one day before it made a liberal one about same-sex marriage. We use original panel data of individuals’ views throughout this period, including a wave collected on the day between the two decisions, to investigate the links among decisions and legitimacy. We find that diffuse support for the Court is sensitive to decisions in these two salient cases conditional on individuals’ ideological distance to the Court and their policy support. Moreover, the negative effects of an unfavorable decision are stronger than the positive effects of a favorable one.
AldrichJohn H.NiemiRichard G.RabinowitzGeorgeRohdeDavid W.1982. “The Measurement of Public Opinion about Public Policy: A Report on Some New Issue Question Formats.” American Journal of Political Science26:391–414.
2.
BartelsBrandon L.JohnstonChristopher D.2013. “On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public.” American Journal of Political Science57 (1): 184–99.
3.
BartelsBrandon L.MutzDiana C.2009. “Explaining Processes of Institutional Opinion Leadership.” The Journal of Politics71 (1): 249–61.
4.
BartelsLarry M.1999. “Panel Effects in the American National Election Studies.” Political Analysis8 (1): 1–20.
5.
BartelsLarry M.2002. “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions.” Political Behavior24 (2): 117–50.
6.
BerinskyAdam J.HuberGregory A.LenzGabriel S.2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis20 (3): 351–68.
7.
BrickmanDanettePetersonDavid A. M.2006. “Public Opinion Reaction to Repeated Events: Citizen Response to Multiple Supreme Court Abortion Decisions.” Political Behavior28 (1): 87–112.
8.
CaldeiraGregory A.GibsonJames L.1992. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science36:635–64.
9.
CampbellAngusConversePhilip E.MillerWarren E.StokesDonald E.1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.
10.
ChristensonDino P.GlickDavid M.2013. “Crowdsourcing Panel Studies and Real-Time Experiments in MTurk.” The Political Methodologist20:27–32.
11.
ChristensonDino P.GlickDavid M.2015a. “Chief Justice Roberts’s Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science59 (2): 403–18.
12.
ChristensonDino P.GlickDavid M.2015b. “Issue-Specific Opinion Change: The Supreme Court and Health Care Reform.” Public Opinion Quarterly79 (4): 881–905.
13.
ChristensonDino P.KrinerDouglas L.2017. “Constitutional Qualms or Politics as Usual? The Factors Shaping Public Support for Unilateral Action.” American Journal of Political Science61 (2): 335–49.
14.
DruckmanJames N.FeinJordanLeeperThomas J.2012. “A Source of Bias in Public Opinion Stability.” American Political Science Review106 (2): 430–54.
15.
DurrRobert H.MartinAndrew D.WolbrechtChristina. 2000. “Ideological Divergence and Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science44:768–76.
16.
EganPatrick J.CitrinJack. 2011. The Limits of Judicial Persuasion and the Fragility of Judicial Legitimacy. Working paper. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2gh262w3.
17.
FiskeSusan T.1980. “Attention and Weight in Person Perception: The Impact of Negative and Extreme Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology38 (6): 889–906.
18.
FranklinCharles H.KosakiLiane C.1989. “Republican Schoolmaster: The U.S. Supreme Court, Public Opinion, and Abortion.” American Political Science Review83:751–71.
19.
GainesBrian J.KuklinskiJames H.QuirkPaul J.PeytonBuddyVerkuilenJay. 2007. “Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq.” The Journal of Politics69 (4): 957–74.
20.
GalweyNicholas W.2007. Introduction to Mixed Modelling: Beyond Regression and Analysis of Variance. Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK: John Wiley.
21.
GelmanAndrewHillJennifer. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Vol. 1. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
GibsonJames L.2007. “The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court in a Polarized Policy.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies4:507–38.
23.
GibsonJames L.2015. “Legitimacy Is for Losers: The Interconnections of Institutional Legitimacy, Performance Evaluations, and the Symbols of Judicial Authority.” In Motivating Cooperation and Compliance with Authority, edited by BornsteinBrian H.TomkinsAlan J., 81–116. New York, NY: Springer.
24.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.2009a. Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
25.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.2009b. “Knowing the Supreme Court? A Reconsideration of Public Ignorance of the High Court.” The Journal of Politics71:421–41.
26.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.2011. “Has Legal Realism Damaged the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court.” Law & Society Review45 (1): 105–219.
27.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.BairdVanessa A.1998. “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts.” American Political Science Review92 (2): 343–58.
28.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.Spence.Lester Kenyatta2003. “The Supreme Court and the U.S. Presidential Election of 2000: Wounds, Self-Inflicted or Otherwise?” British Journal of Political Science33:535–56.
29.
GibsonJames L.NelsonMichael J.2015. “Is the U.S. Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?” American Journal of Political Science59 (1): 162–74.
30.
GoldsteinHarvey. 2011. Multilevel Statistical Models. Vol. 922. Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK: John Wiley.
31.
GrosskopfAnkeMondakJeffrey 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 (3): 633–54.
32.
HetheringtonMark J.SmithJoseph L.2007. “Issue Preferences and Evaluations of the U.S. Supreme Court.” Public Opinion Quarterly71 (1): 40–66.
33.
HoekstraValerie J.2000. “The Supreme Court and Local Public Opinion.” American Political Science Review94:89–100.
34.
JeritJenniferBarabasJason. 2012. “Partisan Perceptual Bias and the Information Environment.” The Journal of Politics74 (3): 672–84.
35.
KahnemanDanielTverskyAmos. 1984. “Choices, Values, and Frames.” American Psychologist39 (4): 341–50.
LauRichard R.1985. “Two Explanations for Negativity Effects in Political Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science29:119–38.
38.
MondakJeffery J.1994. “Policy Legitimacy and the Supreme Court: The Sources and Contexts of Legitimation.” Political Research Quarterly47 (3): 675–92.
39.
MondakJeffery J.SmitheyShannon Ishiyama. 1997. “The Dynamics of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” The Journal of Politics59 (4): 1114–42.
40.
PrattoFeliciaJohnOliver P.1991. “Automatic Vigilance: The Attention-Grabbing Power of Negative Social Information.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology61:380–91.
41.
RaudenbushStephen W.BrykAnthony S.2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
42.
SchaaljeG. BruceMcBrideJustin B.FellinghamGilbert W.2002. “Adequacy of Approximations to Distributions of Test Statistics in Complex Mixed Linear Models.” Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics7 (4): 512–24. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1400374.
43.
SchaffnerBrian F.RocheCameron. 2016. “Misinformation and Motivated Reasoning: Responses to Economic News in a Politicized Environment.” Public Opinion Quarterly81:86–110.
StoutenboroughJames W.Haider-MarkelDonald P.AllenMahalley D.2006. “Reassessing the Impact of Supreme Court Decisions on Public Opinion: Gay Civil Rights Cases.” Political Research Quarterly59 (3): 419–33.
46.
TaberCharles S.LodgeMilton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science50 (3): 755–69.
47.
WarrenJohn RobertHalpern-MannersAndrew. 2012. “Panel Conditioning in Longitudinal Social Science Surveys.” Sociological Methods & Research41 (4): 491–534. doi:10.1177/0049124112460374.
48.
ZallerJohn R.1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
