Fair Game or Foul Play: Public Perceptions of Solicitor General Involvement in U.S. Supreme Court Cases

Abstract

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.