The Solicitor General is well-known for being influential before the U.S. Supreme Court, but much less is known about how the public perceives this actor. Indeed, it is one thing to influence outcomes and another entirely if that influence itself harms acceptance of those outcomes. To assess public support for the Solicitor General, along with other elements important to judicial health such as specific and diffuse support, I conduct a survey experiment that varies several key case characteristics over two issue areas. I find that individuals are more willing to support an influential Solicitor General individually, but that this same influence may have the ability to harm both specific and diffuse support, conditional on partisanship of the respondent. This work illustrates how the Solicitor General’s well-known impact before the Supreme Court has the potential to negatively influence reactions to the judiciary and can inform how the media frames this actor’s role before the increasingly salient Court.
ArmalyM. T. (2021). Loyalty over fairness: Acceptance of Unfair Supreme court procedures. Political Research Quarterly, 74(4), 927–940. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920944470
2.
BaileyM. A.KamoieB.MaltzmanF. (2005). Signals from the tenth justice: The political role of the solicitor general in Supreme court decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 49(1), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00111.x
3.
BairdV. A. (2001). Building institutional legitiimacy: The role of procedural justice. Political Research Quarterly, 54(2), 333–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290105400205
4.
BartelsB. L.JohnstonC. D. (2013). On the ideological foundations of Supreme court legitimacy in the American public. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 184–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00616.x
5.
BlackR. C.OwensR. J. (2011). Solicitor general influence and agenda setting on the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 64(4), 765–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912910388185
6.
BlackR. C.OwensR. J. (2012). The solicitor general and the United States Supreme court: Executive branch influence and judicial decisions. Cambridge University Press.
7.
BlackR. C.OwensR. J. (2013). A built-in advantage: The office of the solicitor general and the U.S. Supreme court. Political Research Quarterly, 66(2), 454–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912912447995
8.
BlumbergA. S. (1967). Criminal justice. Quadrangle Books.
9.
BrownR. L.CampbellS. (1997). How the public views female and Black attorneys. Arkansas Law Review, 33, 22–28.
10.
CaldeiraG. A.GibsonJ. L. (1992). The etiology of public support for the Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 635. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111585
11.
CaldeiraG. A.WrightJ. R. (1988). Organized interests and agenda setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 82(4), 1109–1127. https://doi.org/10.2307/1961752
12.
CasseseE. C.FarhartC. E.MillerJ. M. (2020). Gender differences in COVID-19 conspiracy theory beliefs. Politics and Gender, 16(4), 1009–1018. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X20000409
13.
ChristensonD. P.GlickD. M. (2015). Issue-specific opinion change: The Supreme Court and health care reform. Public Opinion Quarterly, 79(4), 881–905. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfv040
14.
ChristensonD. P.GlickD. M. (2019). Reassessing the Supreme court: How decisions and negativity bias affect legitimacy. Political Research Quarterly, 72(3), 637–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918794906
15.
CollinsP. M.CorleyP. C.HamnerJ. (2015). The influence of amicus curiae briefs on U.S. Supreme court opinion content. Law & Society Review, 49(4), 917–944. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12166
16.
CollinsT. A.CooperC. A. (2015). Making the cases “real”: Newspaper coverage of U.S. Supreme court cases 1953–2004. Political Communication, 32(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2013.879363
17.
CollinsT.MoyerL. (2008). Gender, race, and intersectionality on the federal appellate bench. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907306467
18.
CorleyP. C. (2008). The Supreme court and opinion content: The influence of parties’ briefs. Political Research Quarterly, 61(3), 468–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907306474
EastonD. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
21.
EisensteinJ.JacobH. (1977). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts. Little, Brown and Cocmpany.
22.
GibsonJ. L. (2007). The legitimacy of the United States Supreme court in a polarized polity. SSRN Electronic Journal, 4(3), 507–538. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.909162
23.
GibsonJ. L. (2009). “New-Style” judicial campaigns and the legitimacy of state high courts. The Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1285–1304. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609990211
24.
GibsonJ. L.CaldeiraG. A. (1992). Blacks and the United States Supreme court: Models of diffuse support. The Journal of Politics, 54(4), 1120–1145. https://doi.org/10.2307/2132111
25.
GibsonJ. L.CaldeiraG. A. (2003). Defenders of democracy? Legitimacy, popular acceptance, and the South African constitutional court. The Journal of Politics, 65(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00001
26.
GibsonJ. L. .CaldeiraG. A.SpenceL. K. (2003). Measuring attitudes toward the United States Supreme court. American Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 354–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00025
27.
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(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800201
28.
GibsonJ. L.NelsonM. J. (2015). Is the U.S. Supreme Court’s legitimacy grounded in performance satisfaction and ideology?American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12107
29.
GrimmerJ.MessingS.WestwoodS. J. (2012). How words and money cultivate A personal vote: The effect of legislator credit claiming on constituent credit allocation. American Political Science Review, 106(4), 703–719. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000457
30.
HahnP. W.ClaytonS. D. (1996). The effects of attorney presentation style , attorney gender , and juror gender on juror decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 20(5), 533–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01499040
31.
HarrisJ. C.JesilowP. (2000). It's not the old ball game: Three Strikes and the courtroom workgroup. Justice Quarterly, 17(1), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820000094521
32.
HetheringtonM. J.SmithJ. L. (2007). Issue preferences and evaluations of the U.S. Supreme court. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(1), 40–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl044
33.
HobbsP. (2003). ‘Is that what we’re here about?’: A lawyer’s use of impression management in a closing argument at trial. Discourse & Society, 14(3), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926503014003854
34.
HoekstraV. J. (2000). The Supreme court and local public opinion. American Political Science Review, 94(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586382
35.
KarolD.MiguelE. (2007). The electoral cost of war: Iraq casualties and the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. The Journal of Politics, 69(3), 633–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00564.x
36.
KrinerD. L.ReevesA. (2012). The influence of federal spending on presidential elections. American Political Science Review, 106(2), 348–366. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000159
LinosK.TwistK. (2016). The Supreme court , the media , and public opinion : Comparing experimental and observational methods. The Journal of Legal Studies, 45(2), 223–254. https://doi.org/10.1086/687365
39.
McConnellM. W. (1988). The rule of law and the role of the solicitor general. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 21, 1105–1118.
40.
McGuireK. T. (1998). Explaining executive success in the U. S. Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 51(2), 505. https://doi.org/10.2307/449088
41.
MeinholdS. S.ShullS. A. (1998). Policy congruence between the president and the solicitor general. Political Research Quarterly, 51(2), 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299805100211
42.
MondakJ. J. (1992). Institutional legitimacy, policy legitimacy, and the Supreme court. American Politics Quarterly, 20(4), 457–477. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x9202000406
43.
NicholsonC.CollinsJr.P. M. (2008). The solicitor general’s amicus curiae strategies in the Supreme court. American Politics Research, 49(1), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X07309602
44.
NicholsonS. P.HansfordT. G. (2014). Partisans in robes: Party cues and public acceptance of Supreme court decisions. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 620–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12091
45.
PacelleR. L. (2003). Between law & politics the Solicitor General and the structuring of race, gender, and reproductive rights litigation. Texas A&M University Press.
RobisonJ. (2022). Can elites escape blame by explaining themselves? Suspicion and the limits of elite explanations. British Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 553–572. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712342000071X
48.
RogowskiJ. C.StoneA. R. (2021). How political contestation over judicial nominations polarizes Americans’ attitudes toward the supreme court. British Journal of Poltiical Science, 51(3), 1251–1269.
49.
SchebJ.LyonsW. (2000). The myth of legality and public evaluation of the Supreme court. Social Science Quarterly, 81(4), 928–940. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1013037915485
50.
SchoenherrJ. A.WaterburyN. W. (2022). Confessions at the Supreme court: Judicial response to solicitor general error. Journal of Law and Courts, 10(1), 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1086/714087
51.
SegalJ. A. (1988). Amicus curiae briefs by the solicitor general during the warren and burger courts: A research note. The Western Political Quarterly, 41(1), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591298804100109
52.
SenM. (2017). How political signals affect public support for judicial nominations: Evidence from a conjoint experiment. Political Research Quarterly, 70(2), 374–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917695229
53.
SpriggsJ. F.WahlbeckP. J. (1997). Amicus curiae and the role of information at the Supreme court. Political Research Quarterly, 50(2), 365. https://doi.org/10.2307/448962
54.
VladeckS. I. (2019). The solicitor general and the shadow docket. Harvard Law Review, 133(1), 123–163.
55.
WohlfarthP. C. (2009). The tenth justice? Consequences of politicization in the solicitor general’s office. The Journal of Politics, 71(1), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608090142
56.
WoodS. M.SicafuseL. L.MillerM. K.ChomosJ. C. (2011). ‘The influence of jurors ’ perceptions of attorneys and their performance on verdict. Jury Expert, 23(1), 23–34.
57.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press (CUP).
58.
ZilisM. A. (2015). The limits of legitimacy: Dissenting opinions, media coverage, and public responses to Supreme court decisions. University of Michigan Press.
59.
ZilisM. A. (2018). Minority groups and judicial legitimacy: Group affect and the incentives for judicial responsiveness. Political Research Quarterly, 71(2), 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917735174
60.
ZilisM. A. (2021). The rights paradox: How group attitudes shape US Supreme court legitimacy. Cambridge University Press (CUP).
61.
ZinkJ. R.SpriggsJ. F.ScottJ. T. (2009). Courting the public: The influence of decision attributes on individuals views of court opinions. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 909–925. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609090793
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.
