In the Light: Procedural Legitimacy,the Shadow Docket,and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court

Abstract

This article examines the impact of procedural regularity on public perceptions of the U.S. Supreme Court. I argue that substantive legitimacy can stem from procedural regularity. Using a novel 2 × 2 × 2 experimental design I develop and test multiple hypotheses base on a procedural regularity and fairness model. The study analyzes how decisions made via the emergency docket affect both diffuse and specific support for the Court, drawing on a multi-wave survey of 3793 nationally representative respondents. Results reveal that procedural irregularities significantly reduce specific support for the Court, while diffuse support remains largely unaffected. This pattern holds even when controlling for factors such as democratic values, policy agreement, and perceived ideological distance. These findings suggest that the Court’s procedural choices can influence public perceptions, particularly specific support. This research offers important insights into the complex relationship between judicial procedures and public opinion, indicating that at least some of the Court's legitimacy is in its own hands. As debates intensify over the Court's use of expedited procedures, this study provides timely, empirical evidence of their potential consequences.

Keywords

supreme court emergency docket survey experiments public opinion shadow docket

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ansolabehere

Rodden

Snyder

J. M.

Jr. (2008). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055408080210

Armaly

M. T.

(2018). Extra-judicial actor induced change in Supreme court legitimacy. Political Research Quarterly, 71(3), 600–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917750278

Armaly

M. T.

(2021). Loyalty over fairness: Acceptance of unfair Supreme court procedures. Political Research Quarterly, 74(4), 927–940. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920944470

Armaly

M. T.

Enders

A. M.

(2021). Affective polarization and support for the U.S. Supreme court. Political Research Quarterly, 75(2), 106591292110061. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211006196

Armaly

M. T.

Lane

E. A.

(2023). Politicized battles: How vacancies and partisanship influence support for the Supreme court. American Politics Research, 51(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x211064299

Aronow

Baron

Pinson

A Note on Dropping Experimental Subjects who Fail a Manipulation Check. Political Analysis. 2019;27(4):572-589.

Baird

V. A.

(2001). Building institutional legitimacy: The role of procedural justice. Political Research Quarterly, 54(2), 333–354. https://doi.org/10.2307/449160

Baird

V. A.

Gangl

(2006). Shattering the myth of legality: The impact of the media’s framing of Supreme court procedures on perceptions of fairness. Political Psychology, 27(4), 597–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00518.x

Barnes

(2022). Roberts joins liberals in criticizing ‘shadow docket’ pollution ruling. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/06/supreme-court-shadow-docket-clean-water-act/.

10.

Bartels

B. L.

Johnston

C. D.

(2013). On the ideological foundations of Supreme court legitimacy in the American public: Ideological foundations of supreme court legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 184–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00616.x

11.

Bartels

B. L.

Johnston

C. D.

(2020). Curbing the court: Why the public constrains judicial independence/Brandon L. Bartels, George Washington University; Christopher D. Johnston, Duke University. Cambridge University Press.

12.

Baude

(2015). Foreword: The Supreme court’s shadow docket. New York University Journal of Law & Liberty, 9(1), 1–47.

13.

Baum

(2020). Decision making in the shadows: A look at Supreme court decisions on stays. Law and Courts Newsletter, 30(2), 1–9.

14.

Berinsky

A. J.

(2017). Measuring public opinion with surveys. Annual Review of Political Science, 20(1), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-101513-113724

15.

Berinsky

A. J.

Margolis

M. F.

Sances

M. W.

(2014). Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 739–753. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12081

16.

Bishop

G. F.

(2008). Rational public opinion or its manufacture? Reply to page. Critical Review, 20(1-2), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913810802316399

17.

Boston

Kassow

B. J.

Masood

A. S.

Miller

D. R.

(2023). Your honor’s misdeeds: The consequences of judicial scandal on specific and diffuse support. PS: Political Science and Politics, 56(2), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1017/s104909652200138x

18.

Caldeira

G. A.

(1986). Neither the purse nor the sword: Dynamics of public confidence in the Supreme court. American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1209–1226. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055400185077

19.

Caldeira

G. A.

Gibson

J. L.

(1992). The etiology of public support for the Supreme court. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 635–664. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111585

20.

Christenson

D. P.

Glick

D. M.

(2015). Chief justice Roberts’s health care decision disrobed: The microfoundations of the Supreme court’s legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12150

21.

Clark

C. S.

Palcuk

Westwood

S. J.

Sen

Malhotra

Jessee

(2023). Effects of a US Supreme Court ruling to restrict abortion rights. Nature Human Behavior, 8(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01708-4

22.

Clark

T. S.

Kastellec

J. P.

(2015). Source cues and public support for the Supreme court. American Politics Research, 43(3), 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x14560809

23.

Clayton

Davis

N. T.

Nyhan

Porter

Ryan

T. J.

Wood

T. J.

(2021). Elite rhetoric can undermine democratic norms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 118(23), Article e2024125118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024125118

24.

Converse

P. E.

(1990). Popular representation and the distribution of information. University of Illinois Press.

25.

Coppock

(2019). Generalizing from survey experiments conducted on mechanical Turk: A replication approach. Political Science Research and Methods, 7(3), 613–628. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.10

26.

Coppock

McClellan

O. A.

(2019). Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. Research and Politics, 6, 1–14.

27.

Davis

Benesh

S. C.

(2023). Procedural justice and the shadow docket. Emory Law Journal, 73(2), 443.

28.

Doherty

Wolak

(2012). When do the ends justify the means? Evaluating procedural fairness. Political Behavior, 34(2), 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9166-9

29.

Dost

(2015). Dim public awareness of Supreme Court as major rulings loom. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/14/dim-public-awareness-of-supreme-court-as-major-rulings-loom/.

30.

Druckman

J. N.

Jacobs

L. R.

(2006). Lumpers and splitters the public opinion information that politicians collect and use. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(4), 453–476. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl020

31.

Erskine

(2021). Senators spar over shadow docket in wake of court’s order allowing Texas abortion law to take effect. scotusblog.com. https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/09/senators-spar-overshadow-docket-in-wake-of-courts-order-allowing-texas-abortion-law-to-take-effect/:SCOTUSBlog.

32.

Fox

(2021). Supreme court shadow docket leaves reasoning in the dark, professors say. https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/202109/supreme-court-shadow-docket-leaves-reasoning-dark-professors-say.

33.

Gaines

B. J.

Kuklinski

J. H.

Quirk

P. J.

(2007). The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis, 15(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpl008

34.

Gibson

J. L.

(1989). Understandings of justice: Institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, and political tolerance. Law & Society Review, 23(3), 469–496. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053830

35.

Gibson

J. L.

(1991). Institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, and compliance with Supreme court decisions: A question of causality. Law & Society Review, 25(3), 631–635. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053730

36.

Gibson

J. L.

(2024). Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory. American Journal of Policial Science.

37.

Gibson

J. L.

Caldeira

G. A.

Baird

V. A.

(1998). On the legitimacy of national high courts. American Political Science Review, 92(2), 343–358. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585668

38.

Gibson

J. L.

Caldeira

G. A.

Gibson

J. L. L.

Caldeira

G. A. A.

(2009). Citizens, courts, and confirmations: Positivity theory and the judgments of the American people. Princeton University Press.

39.

Gibson

J. L.

Caldeira

G. A.

Spence

L. K.

(2003). Measuring attitudes toward the United States Supreme court. American Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 354–367. https://doi.org/10.2307/3186144

40.

Gibson

J. L.

Lodge

Woodson

(2014). Losing, but accepting: Legitimacy, positivity theory, and the symbols of judicial authority. Law & Society Review, 48(4), 837–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12104

41.

Gibson

J. L.

Nelson

M. 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

42.

Gibson

J. L.

Nelson

M. J.

(2016). Change in institutional support for the us supreme court: Is the COURT’S legitimacy imperiled by the decisions it makes? Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(3), 622–641. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw011

43.

Gibson

J. L.

Nelson

M. J.

(2017). Reconsidering positivity theory: What roles do politicization, ideological disagreement, and legal realism play in shaping U.S. Supreme court legitimacy? Reconsidering positivity theory. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 14(3), 592–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12157

44.

Gilley

(2009). The right to rule: How states win and lose legitimacy/Bruce Gilley. Columbia University Press.

45.

Grzincic

(2022). Supreme Court uses ‘shadow docket’ to revive Trump EPA clean water rule. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/supreme-court-uses-shadow-docket-revive-trump-epa-clean-water-rule-2022-04-06/.

46.

Jessee

Malhotra

Sen

(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 Sciences - PNAS, 119(24), Article e2120284119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120284119

47.

Kraft

P. W.

Davis

N. R.

Davis

Heideman

Neumeyer

J. T.

Park

S. Y.

(2022). Reliable sources? Correcting misinformation in polarized media environments. American Politics Research, 50(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x211041570

48.

Levendusky

M. S.

(2018). Americans, not partisans: Can priming American national identity reduce affective polarization? The Journal of Politics, 80(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1086/693987

49.

McFadden

T. N.

Kapoor

(2021). The precedential effects of the supreme court’s emergency stays. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 44(3), 827–915.

50.

Meyerson

Mackenzie

MacDermott

(Eds.), (2021). Procedural justice and relational theory: Empirical, philosophical, and legal perspectives/edited by. Routledge Research in Legal Philosophy London: RoutledgeFalmer, Taylor Francis Group.

51.

Mondak

J. J.

(1993). Institutional legitimacy and procedural justice: Reexamining the question of causality. Law & Society Review, 27(3), 599–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/3054106

52.

Nelson

M. J.

Gibson

J. L.

(2020). Measuring subjective ideological disagreement with the US Supreme court. Journal of Law and Courts, 8(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1086/704741

53.

Paas

L. J.

Dolnicar

Karlsson

(2018). Instructional manipulation checks: A longitudinal analysis with implications for MTurk. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 35(2), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2018.01.003

54.

Ramirez

M. D.

(2008). Procedural perceptions and support for the U.S. Supreme court. Political Psychology, 29(5), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00660.x

55.

Smart

E. L.

(2023). A shadow’s influence? How the shadow docket influences public opinion. American Poltics Research, 52(3), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x231220645

56.

Tyler

T. R.

(1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law & Society Review, 22(1), 103–135. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053563

57.

Tyler

T. R.

(1990). Why people obey the law. Yale University Press.

58.

Tyler

T. R.

(1993). Legitimizing unpopular public policies: Does procedure matter? Zeitschrift fu¨r Rechtssoziologie, 14(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfrs-1993-0103

59.

Tyler

T. R.

(2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038

60.

Tyler

T. R.

Goff

P. A.

MacCoun

R. J.

(2015). The impact of psychological science on policing in the United States: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective law enforcement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(3), 75–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615617791

61.

Tyler

T. R.

Lind Allan

(2001). Handbook of justice research in law. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

62.

Tyler

T. R.

Rasinski

(1991). Procedural justice, institutional legitimacy, and the acceptance of unpopular U.S. Supreme court decisions: A reply to Gibson. Law & Society Review, 25(3), 621–630. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053729

63.

Vladeck

(2022). Opinion: The ‘shadow docket’ further erodes the Supreme Court’s legitimacy. cnn.com. https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/26/opinions/supreme-court-shadow-docketvladeck:cnn.com.

64.

Vladeck

(2023). The shadow docket: How the Supreme court uses stealth rulings to amass power and undermine the republic. Basic Books.

65.

Vladeck

S. I.

(2021). Case selection and review at the supreme court hearing before the presidential commission on the supreme court of the United States. Testimony.

66.

Walters

G. D.

Bolger

P. C.

(2019). Procedural justice perceptions, legitimacy beliefs, and compliance with the law: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15(3), 341–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-9338-2

67.

Zaller

(1992). The nature and origins of mass opinon. Cambridge University Press.

68.

Zilis

M. 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

69.

Zilis

M. A.

(2021). The rights paradox: How group attitudes shape US Supreme court legitimacy/Michael A. Zilis, university of Kentucky. Cambridge University 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.

0.00 MB

0.23 MB