Support for the U.S. Supreme Court does not appear to be polarized on ideological or partisan lines. However, the form of polarization for which the mass political behavior field has amassed substantial support is affective in nature. We reconsider the hypothesis that polarization does not bear on Court support by examining the role of affective polarization. Using three sources of nationally representative survey data, we consistently find a negative relationship between affective polarization and both diffuse and specific support for the Court. Moreover, neither general nor Court-specific political sophistication mitigates the negative effect of affective polarization; rather, sophistication exacerbates affective polarization’s influence on support. Finally, panel data show that affective polarization precedes negative evaluations of the judiciary, though there is no support for the converse relationship. Evaluations of the Court are not free from the forces of polarization but are influenced by diverging extra-judicial emotional orientations toward in- and out-groups.
AbramowitzAlan I.SaundersKyle L.2008. “Is Polarization a Myth?” The Journal of Politics70 (2): 542–55.
2.
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.
3.
ArmalyMiles T.2018. “Extra-Judicial Actor Induced Change in Supreme Court Legitimacy.” Political Research Quarterly71 (3): 600–13.
4.
ArmalyMiles T.2020. “Who Can Impact the US Supreme Courts Legitimacy?” Justice System Journal41 (1): 22–36.
5.
ArmalyMiles T. Forthcoming. “Loyalty over Fairness: Acceptance of Unfair Supreme Court Procedures.” Political Research Quarterly.
BairdVanessa A.2001. “Building Institutional Legitimacy: The Role of Procedural Justice.” Political Research Quarterly54 (2): 333–54.
8.
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 (4): 597–613.
9.
BartelsBrandon L.2015. “Sources and Consequences of Polarization on the US Supreme Court.” In American Gridlock: The Sources, Character, and Impact of Political Polarization, edited by ThurberJamesYoshinakaAntoine, 171–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
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.
CaldeiraGregory A.GibsonJames L.1992. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science36:635–64.
13.
CampbellAngusConversePhillip E.MillerWarren E.StokesDonald E.1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.
14.
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.
15.
ChristensonDino P.GlickDavid M.2019. “Reassessing the Supreme Court: How Decisions and Negativity Bias Affect Legitimacy.” Political Research Quarterly72 (3): 637–52.
16.
ClarkTom S.2009. “The Separation of Powers, Court-Curbing and Judicial Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science53 (4): 971–89.
17.
ClarkTom S.KastellecJonathan P.2015. “Source Cues and Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Politics Research43: 504–35.
18.
CollinsTodd A.CooperChristopher A.2012. “Case Salience and Media Coverage of Supreme Court Decisions toward a New Measure.” Political Research Quarterly65 (2): 396–407.
19.
ConversePhillip E.1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in the Mass Publics. In Ideology and Discontent, edited by ApterDavid E., 206–261. New York: Free Press.
20.
DevinsNealBaumLawrence. 2017. “Split Definitive: How Party Polarization Turned the Supreme Court into a Partisan Court.” The Supreme Court Review2017 (1): 301–65.
21.
DurrRobert H.MartinAndrew D.WolbrechtChristina. 2000. “Ideological Divergence and Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science44 (4): 768–76.
22.
EndersAdam M.ArmalyMiles T.2019. “The Differential Effects of Actual and Perceived Polarization.” Political Behavior41:815–39.
23.
EpsteinLeeLindstädtRenéSegalJeffrey A.WesterlandChad. 2006. “The Changing Dynamics of Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees.” The Journal of Politics68 (2): 296–307.
24.
FarganisDionWedekingJustin. 2014. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings in the US Senate: Reconsidering the Charade. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
25.
FinkelSteven E.1995. Causal Analysis with Panel Data. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
26.
FiorinaMorris P.AbramsSamuel J.2008. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” Annual Review of Political Science11:563–88.
27.
GibsonJames L.2007. “The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court in a Polarized Polity.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies4 (3): 507–38.
28.
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.
29.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.2009a. Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
30.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.2009b. “Knowing the Supreme Court? A Reconsideration of Public Ignorance of the High Court.” The Journal of Politics71 (2): 429–41.
31.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.2011. “Has Legal Realism Damaged the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?” Law & Society Review45 (1): 195–219.
32.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.BairdVanessa A.1998. “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts.” American Political Science Review92 (2): 343–58.
33.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester Kenyatta. 2003a. “Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science47 (2): 354–67.
34.
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.
35.
GibsonJames L.LodgeMiltonWoodsonBenjamin. 2014. “Losing, but Accepting: Legitimacy, Positivity Theory, and the Symbols of Judicial Authority.” Law & Society Review48 (4): 837–66.
36.
GibsonJames L.NelsonMichael J.2014. “The Legitimacy of the US Supreme Court: Conventional Wisdoms and Recent Challenges Thereto.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science10:201–19.
37.
GibsonJames L.NelsonMichael J.2015. “Is the US Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?” American Journal of Political Science59 (1): 162–74.
38.
GibsonJames L.PereiraMiguel M.ZieglerJeffrey. 2017. “Updating Supreme Court Legitimacy: Testing the Rule, Learn, Update Model of Political Communication.” American Politics Research45 (6): 980–1002.
39.
HasenRichard L.2019. “Polarization and the Judiciary.” Annual Review of Political Science22:261–76.
40.
HetheringtonMarc J.RudolphThomas J.2015. Why Washington Won’t Work: Polarization, Political Trust, and the Governing Crisis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
41.
HetheringtonMarc J.SmithJoseph L.2007. “Issue Preferences and Evaluations of the US Supreme Court.” Public Opinion Quarterly71 (1): 40–66.
42.
HittMatthew P.SearlesKathleen. 2018. “Media Coverage and Public Approval of the US Supreme Court.” Political Communication35 (4): 566–86.
43.
HoekstraValerie J.2003. Public Reaction to Supreme Court Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
IyengarShantoKrupenkinMasha. 2018. “The Strengthening of Partisan Affect.” Political Psychology39:201–18.
45.
IyengarShantoLelkesYphtachLevenduskyMatthewMalhotraNeilWestwoodSean J.2019. “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science22:129–46.
46.
IyengarShantoSoodGauravLelkesYphtach. 2012. “Affect, not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly76 (3): 405–31.
47.
IyengarShantoWestwoodSean J.2015. “Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science59 (3): 690–707.
JonesDavid R.2015. “Declining Trust in Congress: Effects of Polarization and Consequences for Democracy.” The Forum13:375–94.
50.
KinderDonald R.KalmoeNathan P.2017. Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
51.
LelkesYphtach. 2018. “Affective Polarization and Ideological Sorting: A Reciprocal, albeit Weak, Relationship.” The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics16 (1): 67–79.
52.
LelkesYphtachWestwoodSean J.2017. “The Limits of Partisan Prejudice.” The Journal of Politics79 (2): 485–501.
53.
LenzGabriel S.2012. Follow the Leader: How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
54.
LevenduskyMatthew S.2010. “Clearer Cues, More Consistent Voters: A Benefit of Elite Polarization.” Political Behavior32 (1): 111–31.
55.
LevenduskyMatthew S.2018. “Americans, Not Partisans: Can Priming American National Identity Reduce Affective Polarization?” The Journal of Politics80 (1): 59–70.
56.
LevenduskyMatthew S.MalhotraNeil. 2016. “(Mis)perceptions of Partisan Polarization in the American Public.” Public Opinion Quarterly80 (S1): 378–91.
57.
LodgeMiltonTaberCharles S.2005. “The Automaticity of Affect for Political Leaders, Groups, and Issues: An Experimental Test of the Hot Cognition Hypothesis.” Political Psychology26 (3): 455–82.
58.
LuskinRobert C.1987. “Measuring Political Sophistication.” American Journal of Political Science31:856–99.
59.
MasonLilliana. 2015. “I Disrespectfully Agree: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science59 (1): 128–45.
60.
MasonLilliana. 2018. “Ideologues without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities.” Public Opinion Quarterly82 (S1): 866–87.
61.
McCartyNolanPooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Political Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.
62.
MunroGeoffrey D.WeihCarrieTsaiJeffrey. 2010. “Motivated Suspicion: Asymmetrical Attributions of the Behavior of Political Ingroup and Outgroup Members.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology32 (2): 173–84.
63.
MurphyWalter F.TanenhausJoseph. 1968. “Public Opinion and the United States Supreme Court: Mapping of Some Prerequisites for Court Legitimation of Regime Changes.” Law & Society Review2:357–84.
64.
NelsonMichael J.GibsonJames L.2020. “Measuring Subjective Ideological Disagreement with the US Supreme Court.” Journal of Law and Courts8 (1): 75–94.
65.
NelsonMichael J.TuckerPatrick. Forthcoming. “The Dynamics of U.S. Supreme Court Legitimacy.” The Journal of Politics.
66.
NicholsonStephen P.CoeChelsea M.EmoryJasonSongAnna V.2016. “The Politics of Beauty: The Effects of Partisan Bias on Physical Attractiveness.” Political Behavior38:883–98.
67.
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.
68.
RogowskiJon C.StoneAndrew R. Forthcoming. “How Political Contestation over Judicial Nominations Polarizes Americans’ Attitudes toward the Supreme Court.” British Journal of Political Science.
69.
RogowskiJon C.SutherlandJoseph L.2016. “How Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization.” Political Behavior38:485–508.
70.
SlotnickElliot E.1991. “Media Coverage of Supreme Court Decision Making: Problems and Prospects.” Judicature75:128–42.
71.
SolbergRorie SpillWaltenburgEric N.2014. The Media, the Court, and the Misrepresentation: The New Myth of the Court. New York: Routledge.
72.
TylerTom R.2006. “Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation.” Annual Review of Psychology57:375–400.
73.
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.
74.
WebsterSteven W.2018. “Anger and Declining Trust in Government in the American Electorate.” Political Behavior40 (4): 933–64.
75.
WebsterSteven W.AbramowitzAlan I.2017. “The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization in the US Electorate.” American Politics Research45 (4): 621–47.
76.
WestEmily A.IyengarShanto. 2020. “Partisanship as a Social Identity: Implications for Polarization.” Political Behavior. Published electronically July 29. doi:10.1007/s11109-020-09637-y.
77.
WooldridgeJeffrey M.2010. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge: MIT Press.
78.
YoungCristobal. 2009. “Model Uncertainty in Sociological Research: An Application to Religion and Economic Growth.” American Sociological Review74 (3): 380–97.
79.
YoungCristobalHolsteenKatherine. 2017. “Model Uncertainty and Robustness: A Computational Framework for Multimodel Analysis.” Sociological Methods & Research46 (1): 3–40.
80.
ZilisMichael A.2018. “Minority Groups and Judicial Legitimacy: Group Affect and the Incentives for Judicial Responsiveness.” Political Research Quarterly71 (2): 270–83.
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.
