The literature on the U.S. Supreme Court has paid substantial attention to the perceived legitimacy of the Court’s decisions. However, much less attention has been paid to the perceived legitimacy of the reasons the Court provides for its opinions. We design two experiments to understand how the public perceives opinion content. Unlike prior studies, we take it as a given that the Court uses legal reasons in its decisions. This offers us a baseline by which to compare departures from these legal reasons. We find that extralegal reasons, when paired with legal reasons, do nothing to harm the legitimacy of the Court. Furthermore, we find that even with a lack of legal reasons, the use of extralegal reasons does not harm the legitimacy of the Court, even among those who find that these reasons are inappropriate for the Court to use.
BairdV. A. (2001). Building institutional legitimacy: The role of procedural justice. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 333-354.
2.
BairdV. A.GanglA. (2006). Shattering the myth of legality: The impact of the media’s framing of Supreme Court procedures on perceptions of fairness. Political Psychology, 27, 597-613.
3.
BakerL. (1974). John Marshall: A life in law. New York, NY: Macmillan.
4.
BartelsB. L.JohnstonC. D. (2013). On the ideological foundations of Supreme Court legitimacy in the American public. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 184-199.
5.
BobbittP. (1982). Constitutional fate. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
6.
Bowers v. Hardwick. (1986). 478 U.S. 186.
7.
CaldeiraG. A.GibsonJ. L. (1992). The etiology of public support for the Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 635-664.
8.
CaseyG. (1974). The Supreme Court and myth: An empirical investigation. Law & Society Review, 8, 385-419.
9.
CasillasC. J.EnnsP. K.WohlfarthP. C. (2011). How public opinion constrains the U.S. Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 74-88.
10.
ChemerinskyE. (2002). The rhetoric of constitutional law. Michigan Law Review, 100, 2008-2035.
11.
Clapper v. Amnesty International. (2013). 568 U.S.
12.
EastonD. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York, NY: John Wiley.
13.
FarganisD. (2012). Do reasons matter? The impact of opinion content on Supreme Court legitimacy. Political Research Quarterly, 65, 206-216.
14.
FeldmanS.StennerK. (1997). Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 18, 741-770.
15.
FranklinC. H.KosakiL. C. (1989). Republican schoolmaster: The U.S. Supreme Court, public opinion, and abortion. American Political Science Review, 83, 751-771.
16.
GibsonJ. L. (1989). Understandings of justice: Institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, and political tolerance. Law & Society Review, 23, 469-496.
17.
GibsonJ. L. (2007). The legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court in a polarized polity. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 507-538.
18.
GibsonJ. L. (2012). Electing judges: The surprising effects of campaigning on judicial legitimacy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19.
GibsonJ. L.CaldeiraG. A. (1996). The legal cultures of Europe. Law & Society Review, 30, 55-85.
20.
GibsonJ. L.CaldeiraG. A. (2009a). Citizens, courts, and confirmations: Positivity theory and the judgments of the American people. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
GibsonJ. L.CaldeiraG. A. (2009b). Confirmation politics and the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court: Institutional loyalty, positivity bias, and the Alito nomination. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 139-155.
22.
GibsonJ. L.CaldeiraG. A. (2009c). Knowing the Supreme Court? A reconsideration of public ignorance of the high court. Journal of Politics, 71, 429-441.
23.
GibsonJ. L.CaldeiraG. A.BairdV. A. (1998). On the legitimacy of national high courts. American Political Science Review, 92, 343-358.
24.
GibsonJ. L.CaldeiraG. A.SpenceL. K. (2003). The Supreme Court and the U.S. presidential election of 2000: Wounds, self-inflicted or otherwise?British Journal of Political Science, 33, 535-556.
25.
GibsonJ. L.CaldeiraG. A.SpenceL. K. (2005). Why do people accept public policies they oppose? Testing legitimacy theory with a survey-based experiment. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 187-201.
GrosskopfA.MondakJ. 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 Quarterly, 51, 633-654.
29.
HetheringtonM. J.WeilerJ. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
30.
HoekstraV. J. (2000). The Supreme Court and local public opinion. American Political Science Review, 94, 89-100.
31.
HoekstraV. J. (2003). Public reactions to Supreme Court decisions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
32.
KritzerH. M. (2001). The impact of Bush v. Gore on public perceptions and knowledge of the Supreme Court. Judicature, 85, 32-38.
33.
Lawrence v. Texas. (2003). 539 U.S. 558.
34.
MarmorA. (2005). Interpretation and legal theory. Oxford, UK: Hart.
35.
McGuireK. T.StimsonJ. A. (2004). The least dangerous branch revisited: New evidence on Supreme Court responsiveness to public preferences. Journal of Politics, 66, 1018-1035.
36.
MishlerW.SheehanR. S. (1993). The Supreme Court as a countermajoritarian institution? The impact of public opinion on Supreme Court decisions. American Political Science Review, 87, 87-101.
37.
MondakJ. J. (1991). Substantive and procedural aspects of Supreme Court decisions as determinants of institutional approval. American Politics Quarterly, 19, 174-188.
38.
MondakJ. J. (1992). Institutional legitimacy, policy legitimacy, and the Supreme Court. American Politics Quarterly, 20, 457-477.
39.
MondakJ. J.SmitheyS. I. (1997). The dynamics of public support for the Supreme Court. Journal of Politics, 59, 1114-1142.
40.
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms. (2010). 561 U.S. 139.
41.
OwensR. J.WedekingJ.WohlfarthP. C. (2013). How the Supreme Court alters opinion language to evade congressional review. Journal of Law and Courts, 1, 35-59.
SlotnickE. E.SegalJ. A. (1998). Television news and the Supreme Court: All the news that’s fit to air?New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
44.
SwansonR. A. (2007). The dynamics of specific and diffuse support for the U.S. Supreme Court: A panel study. Social Science Journal, 44, 645-663.
45.
WellsM. L. (2007). Sociological legitimacy in Supreme Court opinions. Washington and Lee Law Review, 64, 1011-1070.
46.
ZinkJ. R.SpriggsJ. F.ScottJ. T. (2009). Courting the public: The influence of decision attributes on individuals’ views of court opinions. Journal of Politics, 71, 909-925.
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.
