The media environment has changed dramatically in the last 25 years. “New media” sources now dominate the landscape, although there has been very little systematic work on such coverage, particularly as it applies to courts and the rule of law. We use a new tool—SCOTUSapp—to gather news stories spanning five-plus years from thousands of outlets. Specifically, we examine the negativity, simplicity, and ideological tenor of coverage as it relates to Supreme Court coverage. We then connect those three features in an experiment that seeks to understand their impact on Supreme Court legitimacy in an era of polarization. We expect legitimacy will decline when media portrays the institution using ideological, simplistic, and negative coverage, and we expect partisan preferences to condition the impact of coverage, along with the direction of the Court’s ruling, on legitimacy. We administer a survey experiment where respondents read an article about an election law ruling, with treatments that vary the three media traits and ideological direction of ruling. We find significant effects on legitimacy for the interaction of partisanship with decision direction, ideological coverage and, in some specifications, simplistic coverage, but no effects for tone. We then discuss the potential ramifications.
AchurySusanCasellasJason P.HoferScott J.WardMatthew. 2023. “The Impact of Racial Representation on Judicial Legitimacy: White Reactions to Latinos on the Bench.” Political Research Quarterly76 (1): 158–72.
2.
AchurySusanCasellasJason P.HoferScott J.WardMatthew. 2025. “The Dimensions of Judicial Legitimacy: Assessing the Impact of Latino Representation.” Politics, Groups, and Identities1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2025.2469253
3.
BadasAlex. 2016. “The Public’s Motivated Response to Supreme Court Decision Making.” Justice System Journal37 (4): 318–30.
4.
BadasAlex. 2023. “Motivated Reasoning and Attitudes Towards Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings: Evidence from Five Nominations and an Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly76 (2): 540–52.
5.
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): 597–14.
6.
BarberáPabloJostJohn T.NaglerJonathanTuckerJoshua A.BonneauRichard. 2015. “Tweeting from Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More than an Echo Chamber?” Psychological Science26 (10): 1531–42.
7.
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.
8.
BartelsBrandon L.JohnstonChristopher D.. 2020. Curbing the Court: Why the Public Constrains Judicial Independence. Cambridge University Press.
9.
BerinskyAdam J.HuberGregory A.LenzGabriel S.. 2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis20 (3): 351–68.
BrundidgeJenniferReidScott A.ChoiSujinMuddimanAshley. 2014. “The “Deliberative Digital Divide:” Opinion Leadership and Integrative Complexity in the US Political Blogosphere.” Political Psychology35 (6): 741–55.
12.
CaldeiraGregory A.GibsonJames L.. 1992. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science36: 635–64.
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.
ChristensonDino P.GlickDavid M.. 2019. “Reassessing the Supreme Court: How Decisions and Negativity Bias Affect Legitimacy.” Political Research Quarterly72 (3): 637–52.
15.
CitrinJackStokerLaura. 2018. “Political Trust in a Cynical Age.” Annual Review of Political Science21 (1): 49–7.
16.
CliffordScottJewellRyan M.WaggonerPhilip D.. 2015. “Are Samples Drawn from Mechanical Turk Valid for Research on Political Ideology?” Research & Politics2 (4): 2053168015622072.
17.
CoffeyDaniel. 2005. “Measuring Gubernatorial Ideology: a Content Analysis of State of the State Speeches.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly5 (1): 88–13.
18.
CollJosephTolbertCaroline J.RitterMichael. 2022. “Understanding Preferences for Comprehensive Electoral Reform in the United States.” Social Science Quarterly103 (7): 1523–38.
19.
CollinsPaul M.Eshbaugh-SohaMatthew. 2019. The President and the Supreme Court: Going Public on Judicial Decisions from Washington to Trump. Cambridge University Press.
20.
DenisonAlexanderWedekingJustinZilisMichael A.. 2020. “Negative Media Coverage of the Supreme Court: the Interactive Role of Opinion Language, Coalition Size, and Ideological Signals.” Social Science Quarterly101 (1): 121–43.
21.
DriscollAmandaNelsonMichael J.. 2023. “Are Courts “Different?” Experimental Evidence on the Unique Costs of Attacking Courts.” Research & Politics10 (3): 20531680231188302.
22.
DruckmanJames N.SamaraKlarKrupnikovYannaLevenduskyMatthewRyanJohn Barry. 2022. “(Mis) Estimating Affective Polarization.” The Journal of Politics84 (2): 1106–17.
23.
GadarianShana KushnerStrotherLogan. 2023. “Institutional Hybridity and policy-motivated Reasoning Structure Public Evaluations of the Supreme Court.” PLoS One18 (11): e0294525.
24.
GibsonJames L.2024a. “Do the Effects of Unpopular Supreme Court Rulings Linger? the Dobbs Decision Rescinding Abortion Rights.” American Political Science Review119: 1–8.
25.
GibsonJames L.2024b. “Losing Legitimacy: the Challenges of the Dobbs Ruling to Conventional Legitimacy Theory.” American Journal of Political Science68: 1041.
26.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.. 2009. “Knowing the Supreme Court? A Reconsideration of Public Ignorance of the High Court.” The Journal of Politics71 (2): 429–41.
27.
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.
28.
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.
29.
GibsonJames L.NelsonMichael J.. 2017. “Reconsidering Positivity Theory: what Roles Do Politicization, Ideological Disagreement, and Legal Realism Play in Shaping US Supreme Court Legitimacy?” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies14 (3): 592–67.
30.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester Kenyatta. 2003. “The Supreme Court and the US Presidential Election of 2000: Wounds, self-inflicted or Otherwise?” British Journal of Political Science33 (4): 535–56.
31.
GibsonJames L.LodgeMiltonWoodsonBenjamin. 2014. “Losing, but Accepting: Legitimacy, Positivity Theory, and the Symbols of Judicial Authority.” Law & Society Review48 (4): 837–66.
32.
GruenfeldDeborah H.1995. “Status, Ideology, and Integrative Complexity on the US Supreme Court: Rethinking the Politics of Political Decision Making.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology68 (1): 5–2.
33.
GuessAndrew M.LyonsBenjamin A.. 2020. “Misinformation, Disinformation, and Online Propaganda.” In Social Media and Democracy, edited by PersilyNathanielTuckerJoshua A., 10–3. Cambridge University Press.
34.
HittMatthew P.SearlesKathleen. 2018. “Media Coverage and Public Approval of the US Supreme Court.” Political Communication35 (4): 566–86.
35.
HouckShannon C.ConwayLucian GideonIII. 2019. “Strategic Communication and the Integrative Complexity-Ideology Relationship: Meta-Analytic Findings Reveal Differences Between Public Politicians and Private Citizens in Their Use of Simple Rhetoric.” Political Psychology40 (5): 1119–41.
36.
JesseeStephenMalhotraNeilSenMaya. 2022. “A decade-long Longitudinal Survey Shows that the Supreme Court is now Much More Conservative than the Public.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119 (24): e2120284119.
37.
JohnstonChristopher D.BartelsBrandon L.. 2010. “Sensationalism and Sobriety: Differential Media Exposure and Attitudes Toward American Courts.” Public Opinion Quarterly74 (2): 260–85.
38.
JohnstonChristopher D.HillygusD SunshineBartelsBrandon L.. 2014. “Ideology, the Affordable Care Act Ruling, and Supreme Court Legitimacy.” Public Opinion Quarterly78 (4): 963–73.
39.
JostJohn T. 2017. “Ideological Asymmetries and the Essence of Political Psychology.” Political Psychology38 (2): 167–208.
40.
JostJohn T.GlaserJackSullowayFrank J.KruglanskiArie W.. 2003. “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.” Psychological Bulletin129 (3): 339–75.
KromphardtChristopher D.SalamoneMichael F.. 2021. ““Unpresidented!” Or: what Happens when the President Attacks the Federal Judiciary on Twitter.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics18 (1): 84–100.
43.
LawrenceRegina G.2023. The Politics of Force: Media and the Construction of Police Brutality. Oxford University Press.
44.
LevayKevin E.FreeseJeremyDruckmanJames N.. 2016. “The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples.” Sage Open6 (1): 2158244016636433.
45.
LevenduskyMatthewPattersonShawnJrMargolisMichelePasekJoshWinnegKennethJamiesonKathleen H. 2024. “Has the Supreme Court Become Just Another Political Branch? Public Perceptions of Court Approval and Legitimacy in a Post-Dobbs World.” Science Advances10 (10): eadk9590.
46.
MalhotraNeilJesseeStephen A.. 2014. “Ideological Proximity and Support for the Supreme Court.” Political Behavior36: 817–46.
47.
MitchellDavid.2015. “Type-Token Models: a Comparative Study.” Journal of Quantitative Linguistics22 (1): 1–21.
48.
MullinixKevin J.LeeperThomas J.DruckmanJames N.FreeseJeremy. 2015. “The Generalizability of Survey Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Political Science2 (2): 109–38.
49.
NelsonMichael J.TuckerPatrick D.. 2021. “The Stability and Durability of the US Supreme Court’s Legitimacy.” The Journal of Politics83 (2): 767–71.
50.
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.
51.
OwensRyan J.WedekingJustin P.. 2011. “Justices and Legal Clarity: Analyzing the Complexity of US Supreme Court Opinions.” Law & Society Review45 (4): 1027–61.
52.
PennebakerJames W.BoothRoger J.FrancisMartha E.. 2007. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. LIWC [Computer Software].
53.
PriorMarkus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge University Press.
54.
PriorMarkus. 2013. “Media and Political Polarization.” Annual Review of Political Science16: 101–27.
55.
RamirezMark D.2008. “Procedural Perceptions and Support for the US Supreme Court.” Political Psychology29 (5): 675–98.
56.
SalamoneMichael F.2018. Perceptions of a Polarized Court: How Division Among Justices Shapes the Supreme Court’s Public Image. Temple University Press.
57.
SchebJohn M.LyonsWilliam. 2000. “The Myth of Legality and Public Evaluation of the Supreme Court.” Social Science Quarterly81 (4): 928–40.
SmithJoseph L.2014. “Law, Fact, and the Threat of Reversal from Above.” American Politics Research42 (2): 226–56.
60.
TylerTom R.1988. “What Is Procedural justice-criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures.” Law & Society Review22: 103–35.
61.
TylerTom R.2003. “Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the Effective Rule of Law.” Crime and Justice30: 283–357.
62.
TylerTom R.2006. “Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation.” Annual Review of Psychology57 (1): 375–400.
63.
TylerTom R.2023. “Whither Legitimacy? Legal Authority in the twenty-first Century.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science19 (1): 1–17.
64.
TylerTom RHuoYuen J.. 2002. Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. Russell Sage Foundation.
65.
TylerTom R.JacksonJonathan. 2014. “Popular Legitimacy and the Exercise of Legal Authority: Motivating Compliance, Cooperation, and Engagement.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law20 (1): 78–95.
66.
ZilisMichael. 2015. The Limits of Legitimacy: Dissenting Opinions, Media Coverage, and Public Responses to Supreme Court Decisions. University of Michigan 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.
