Depictions of Partisan Bias at Oral Argument and Public Evaluations of the U.S. Supreme Court

Abstract

The Supreme Court relies on public goodwill for its authority, yet its decision-making processes are often hidden from the public eye. Media coverage of oral arguments in prominent cases provides an opportunity for Americans to assess how the Court carries out its procedures. Using a survey experiment conducted around the oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson, we show that depictions of partisan bias by the justices in their oral argument questioning patterns reduce perceptions of procedural fairness, decrease approval of oral argument, and undermine views about the Court’s authority. While these effects are driven by bias against copartisans, bias favoring copartisans does not improve evaluations. Our findings illustrate the responsiveness of the American public to depictions of the Court’s decision-making behavior and highlight procedural fairness as an avenue for the Court to maintain institutional support.