Evidence of procedural fairness leads individuals to support Supreme Court decisions, even ones with which they disagree. Yet, in some settings, unfair behavior is seen as acceptable, even praiseworthy, if it yields a pleasing outcome for one’s group. The loyalty norm occasionally trumps the fairness norm, and group loyalty has taken on increasing importance in American politics. I use a nationally representative survey with an embedded experiment, and a convenience sample survey experiment, to relate group (i.e., partisan) loyalty and perceptions of (un)fair behavior to support for the Court. I find that when group concerns are unclear, individuals tend to punish the Court for unfair behavior. However, despite conventional wisdom regarding fairness and support, individuals fail to censure unfair behavior when their group benefits from the Court’s impropriety. These effects hold when integrating preferences regarding specific case outcomes. Perceived unfair procedures do not universally harm evaluations of the Supreme Court.
AnsolabehereStephenRoddenJonathanSnyderJames M.2008. “The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review102 (2): 215–32.
2.
ArmalyMiles T.2018a. “Extra-judicial Actor Induced Change in Supreme Court Legitimacy.” Political Research Quarterly71 (3): 600–13
3.
ArmalyMiles T.2018b. “Politicized Nominations and Public Attitudes toward the Supreme Court in the Polarization Era.” Justice System Journal39 (3): 193–209.
4.
ArmalyMiles T.2020. “Who Can Impact the US Supreme Court’s Legitimacy?” Justice System Journal41 (1): 22–36.
5.
AschSolomon E.1956. “Studies of Independence and Conformity: A Minority of One against a Unanimous Majority.” Psychological Monographs: General and Applied70 (9): 1–70.
6.
BairdVanessaGanglAmy. 2006. “Shattering the Myth of Legality: The Impact of the Media’s Framing of Supreme Court Procedures on Perceptions of Fairness.” Political Psychology27 (4): 597–613.
7.
BairdVanessa A.2001. “Building Institutional Legitimacy: The Role of Procedural Justice.” Political Research Quarterly54 (2): 333–54.
8.
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.
9.
BianLinSloaneStephanieBaillargeonRenée. 2018. “Infants Expect Ingroup Support to Override Fairness When Resources Are Limited.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115 (11): 2705–10.
10.
BolsenTobyThorntonJudd R.2014. “Overlapping Confidence Intervals and Null Hypothesis Testing.” The Experimental Political Scientist4 (1): 12–16.
11.
CaldeiraGregory A.GibsonJames L.1992. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science36:635–64.
12.
CasillasChristopher J.EnnsPeter K.WohlfarthPatrick C.2011. “How Public Opinion Constrains the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science55 (1): 74–88.
13.
ChristensonDino P.GlickDavid M.2015. “Chief Justice Roberts’s Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science59 (2): 403–18.
14.
ClarkTom S.2009. “The Separation of Powers, Court-Curbing and Judicial Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science53 (4): 971–89.
15.
ClarkTom S.KastellecJonathan P.2015. “Source Cues and Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Politics Research43:504–35
16.
CoppockAlexanderMcClellanOliver A.2019. “Validating the Demographic, Political, Psychological, and Experimental Results Obtained from a New Source of Online Survey Respondents.” Research & Politics6 (1): 2053168018822174.
EndersAdam M.ArmalyMiles T.2019. “The Differential Effects of Actual and Perceived Polarization.” Political Behavior41 (3): 815–39.
20.
EndersAdam M.ScottJamil S.2019. “The Increasing Racialization of American Electoral Politics, 1988-2016.” American Politics Research47 (2): 275–303.
21.
FarganisDion. 2012. “Do Reasons Matter? The Impact of Opinion Content on Supreme Court Legitimacy.” Political Research Quarterly65 (1): 206–16.
22.
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.
23.
GibsonJames L.1989. “Understandings of Justice: Institutional Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Political Tolerance.” Law & Society Review23:469–96.
24.
GibsonJames L.1991. “Institutional Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Compliance with Supreme Court Decisions: A Question of Causality.” Law & Society Review25 (3): 631–35.
25.
GibsonJames L.2008. “Challenges to the Impartiality of State Supreme Courts: Legitimacy Theory and ‘New-Style’ Judicial Campaigns.” American Political Science Review102 (1): 59–75.
26.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.1995. “The Legitimacy of Transnational Legal Institutions: Compliance, Support, and the European Court of Justice.” American Journal of Political Science39:459–89.
27.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.2009. Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People. Princeton University Press.
28.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.2011. “Has Legal Realism Damaged the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?” Law & Society Review45 (1): 195–219.
29.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.BairdVanessa A.1998. “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts.” American Political Science Review92 (2): 343–58.
30.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester Kenyatta. 2003a. “Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science47 (2): 354–67.
31.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester Kenyatta. 2003b. “The Supreme Court and the U.S. Presidential Election of 2000: Wounds, Self-inflicted or Otherwise?” British Journal of Political Science33 (4): 535–56.
32.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester Kenyatta. 2005. “Why Do People Accept Public Policies They Oppose? Testing Legitimacy Theory with a Survey-Based Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly58 (2): 187–201.
33.
GibsonJames L.LodgeMiltonWoodsonBenjamin. 2014. “Losing, but Accepting: Legitimacy, Positivity Theory, and the Symbols of Judicial Authority.” Law & Society Review48 (4): 837–66.
34.
GneezyUri. 2005. “Deception: The Role of Consequences.” American Economic Review95 (1): 384–94.
35.
GreenDonaldPalmquistBradleyShicklerEric. 2004. Partisan Hearts and Partisan Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven: Yale University.
36.
HaidtJonathan. 2007. “The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology.” Science316 (5827): 998–1002.
37.
HansfordThomas G.IntawanChanitaNicholsonStephen P.2018. “Snap Judgment: Implicit Perceptions of a (Political) Court.” Political Behavior40 (1): 127–47.
HibbingJohn R.Theiss-MorseElizabeth. 1995. Congress as Public Enemy: Public Attitudes toward American Political Institutions. Cambridge University Press.
40.
HibbingJohn R.Theiss-MorseElizabeth. 2001. “Process Preferences and American Politics: What the People Want Government to Be.” American Political Science Review95 (1): 145–53.
41.
HildrethJohn Angus D.AndersonCameron. 2018. “Does Loyalty Trump Honesty? Moral Judgments of Loyalty-Driven Deceit.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology79:87–94.
42.
HildrethJohn Angus D.GinoFrancescaBazermanMax. 2016. “Blind Loyalty? When Group Loyalty Makes Us See Evil or Engage in It.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes132:16–36.
43.
HuddyLeonieMasonLillianaAarøeLene. 2015. “Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity.” American Political Science Review109 (1): 1–17.
44.
IyengarShantoSoodGauravLelkesYphtach. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly76 (3): 405–31.
45.
IyengarShantoWestwoodSean J.2015. “Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science59 (3): 690–707.
46.
KrewsonChrisLassenDavidOwensRyan J.2018. “Research Note: Twitter and the Supreme Court: An Examination of Congressional Tweets about the Supreme Court.” Justice System Journal39 (4): 322–30.
47.
LevenduskyMatthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. University of Chicago Press.
48.
LindE. AllanTylerTom R.1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Springer Science & Business Media.
49.
LodgeMiltonTaberCharles S.2013. The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge University Press.
50.
MondakJeffery J.1993. “Institutional Legitimacy and Procedural Justice: Reexamining the Question of Causality.” Law & Society Review27:599–608.
51.
NadlerJanice. 2017. “Expressive Law, Social Norms, and Social Groups.” Law & Social Inquiry42 (1): 60–75.
52.
NelsonMichael J.GibsonJames L.2019. “How Does Hyperpoliticized Rhetoric Affect the US Supreme Court’s Legitimacy?” The Journal of Politics81 (4): 1512–16.
53.
NelsonMichael J.TuckerPatrick. n.d. “The Stability of the U.S Supreme Court’s Legitimacy.” Journal of Politics.
54.
NicholsonStephen P.2011. “Dominating Cues and the Limits of Elite Influence.” The Journal of Politics73 (4): 1165–77.
55.
NicholsonStephen P.HansfordThomas G.2014. “Partisans in Robes: Party Cues and Public Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions.” American Journal of Political Science58 (3): 620–36.
56.
NyhanBrendanReiflerJason. 2010. “When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions.” Political Behavior32 (2): 303–30.
57.
RamirezMark D.2008. “Procedural Perceptions and Support for the US Supreme Court.” Political Psychology29 (5): 675–98.
58.
ReysenStephenPuryearCurtis. 2014. “Victims’ Reactions to the Interpersonal Threat to Public Identity Posed by Copycats.” Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships8 (1): 100–14.
59.
SalamoneMichael F.2013. “Judicial Consensus and Public Opinion: Conditional Response to Supreme Court Majority Size.” Political Research Quarterly67:320–34.
60.
SalamoneMichael F.2018. Perceptions of a Polarized Court: How Division among Justices Shapes the Supreme Court’s Public Image. Temple University Press.
61.
SolbergRorie SpillWaltenburgEric N.2014. The Media, the Court, and the Misrepresentation: The New Myth of the Court. Routledge.
62.
SternthalBrianDholakiaRubyLeavittClark. 1978. “The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: Tests of Cognitive Response.” Journal of Consumer Research4 (4): 252–60.
63.
SuhayElizabeth. 2015. “Explaining Group Influence: The Role of Identity and Emotion in Political Conformity and Polarization.” Political Behavior37 (1): 221–51.
64.
TaberCharles S.LodgeMilton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science50 (3): 755–69.
65.
TajfelHenri. 1970. “Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination.” Scientific American223 (5): 96–103.
66.
TajfelHenriTurnerJohn C.1979. “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.” In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by AustinWilliam G.WorchelStephen, 33–47. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.
67.
TylerTom R.2006. “Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation.” Annual Review of Psychology57: 375–400.
68.
TylerTom R.RasinskiKenneth. 1991. “Procedural Justice, Institutional Legitimacy, and the Acceptance of Unpopular US Supreme Court Decisions: A Reply to Gibson.” Law & Society Review25:621–30.
69.
UraJoseph DanielWohlfarthPatrick C.2010. “‘An Appeal to the People’: Public Opinion and Congressional Support for the Supreme Court.” The Journal of Politics72 (4): 939–56.
70.
WaytzAdamDunganJamesYoungLiane. 2013. “The Whistleblower’s Dilemma and the Fairness–Loyalty Tradeoff.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology49 (6): 1027–33.
71.
WoodsonBenjamin. 2015. “Politicization and the Two Modes of Evaluating Judicial Decisions.” Journal of Law and Courts3 (2): 193–221.
72.
ZinkJames R.SpriggsJames F.IIScottJohn T.2009. “Courting the Public: The Influence of Decision Attributes on Individuals’ Views of Court Opinions.” Journal of Politics71 (3): 909–25.
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.
