1932

Abstract

This article focuses on how judges present arguments in written opinions and whether the predominant style of argumentation promotes the legitimacy of the judiciary. Judicial opinions are habitually unequivocal, overstated, and lacking of any doubt that the singularly correct decision was reached. Studies examining the effect of argumentation in judicial opinions are limited but generally suggest that furnishing a monolith of reasons does not have persuasive power. In contrast, opinions that acknowledge the complexity and indeterminacy of the decision do have a salutary effect on legitimacy for those who disagree with the outcome of the decision. However, a much larger and more consistent finding is that legitimacy is determined by whether one agrees or disagrees with the outcome of the decision, not the reasons underlying the outcome. The study of public reactions to judicial opinions is important and in its infancy. Avenues for future empirical research are discussed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-031050
2018-10-13
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/14/1/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-031050.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-031050&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Altman S 1990. Beyond candor. Mich. Law Rev. 89:296–351
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Audette AP, Weaver CL 2015. Faith in the court: religious out‐groups and the perceived legitimacy of judicial decisions. Law Soc. Rev. 49:999–1022
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Badas A 2016. The public's motivated response to Supreme Court decision-making. Justice Syst. J. 37:318–30
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baird VA 2001. Building institutional legitimacy: the role of procedural justice. Political Res. Q. 54:333–54
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baird VA, Gangl A 2006. Shattering the myth of legality: the impact of the media's framing of Supreme Court procedures on perceptions of fairness. Political Psychol 27:597–614
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bartels BL, Johnston CD 2013. On the ideological foundations of Supreme Court legitimacy in the American public. Am. J. Political Sci. 57:184–99
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bonneau CW, Kelly JT, Pronin K, Redman SM, Zarit M 2017. Evaluating the effects of multiple opinion rationales on Supreme Court legitimacy. Am. Political Res. 45:335–65
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD 2011. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6:3–5
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Caldeira GA, Gibson JL 1992. The etiology of public support for the Supreme Court. Am. J. Political Sci. 36:635–64
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chemerinsky E 2002. The rhetoric of constitutional law. Mich. Law Rev. 100:2008–35
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Clapper v. Amnesty International USA 568 U.S 398 2013.
  12. Coe K, Tewksbury D, Bond BJ, Drogos KL, Porter RW et al. 2008. Hostile news: partisan use and perceptions of cable news programming. J. Commun. 58:201–19
    [Google Scholar]
  13. DeVellis RF 2016. Scale Development: Theory and Applications Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  14. Dworkin R 1986. Law's Empire Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  15. Epstein L 2015. Some thoughts on the study of judicial behavior. William Mary Law Rev 57:2017–74
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Eskridge WN, Frickey PP 1994. Commentary: The making of The Legal Process. Harvard Law Rev 107:2031–55
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Farganis D 2012. Do reasons matter? The impact of opinion content on Supreme Court legitimacy. Political Res. Q. 65:206–16
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferguson RA 1990. The judicial opinion as literary genre. Yale J. Law Humanit. 2:201–20
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fried C 1999. Scholars and judges: reason and power. Harvard J. Law Public Policy 23:807–32
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fuller LL 1978. The forms and limits of adjudication. Harvard Law Rev 92:353–409
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gallup. 2017. U.S. Supreme Court job approval rating ties record low. Gallup Politics July 29. http://www.gallup.com/poll/194057/supreme-court-job-approval-rating-ties-record-low.aspx
  22. Gewirtz P 1996. On “I Know It When I See It.”. Yale Law J 105:1023–42
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gibson JL 2015. Legitimacy is for losers: the interconnections of institutional legitimacy, performance evaluations, and the symbols of judicial authority. Motivating Cooperation and Compliance with Authority B Bornstein, A Tomkins 81–116 Cham, Switz: Springer Int. Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gibson JL, Caldeira GA 2011. Has legal realism damaged the legitimacy of the US Supreme Court?. Law Soc. Rev. 45:195–219
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gibson JL, Caldeira GA, Spence LK 2003. Measuring attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court. Am. J. Political Sci. 47:354–67
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gibson JL, Nelson MJ 2014. The legitimacy of the US Supreme Court: conventional wisdoms and recent challenges thereto. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 10:201–19
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gibson JL, Nelson MJ 2016. Change in institutional support for the US Supreme Court: Is the Court's legitimacy imperiled by the decisions it makes?. Public Opinion Q 80:622–41
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gibson JL, Nelson MJ 2017. Reconsidering positivity theory: What roles do politicization, ideological disagreement, and legal realism play in shaping US Supreme Court legitimacy?. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 14:592–617
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Haider-Markel DP, Allen MD, Johansen M 2006. Understanding variations in media coverage of US Supreme Court decisions: comparing media outlets in their coverage of Lawrence v. Texas. Harvard Int. J. Press Politics 11:64–85
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hansford TG, Intawan C, Nicholson SP 2018. Snap judgment: implicit perceptions of a (political) court. Political Behav 40:127–47
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ 2004. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ. Res. 33:14–26
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kahan DM 2011. The Supreme Court 2010 term—foreword: neutral principles, motivated cognition, and some problems for constitutional law. Harvard Law Rev 125:1–78
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kahan DM 2012. The aporetic judge. Cultural Cognition Project Blog Oct 2. http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2012/10/2/the-aporetic-judge.html
  34. Klein D 2015. The normative element of legitimacy. Making Law and Courts Research Relevant BL Bartels, CW Bonneau 157–69 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Knowles HJ, Lichtman SB, Metroka BT 2017. The US Supreme Court in the Obama years. The Obama Presidency and the Politics of Change: Studies of the Americas E Ashbee, J Dumbrell 79–97 Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Leflar RA 1961. Some observations concerning judicial opinions. Columbia Law Rev 61:810–20
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Loken E, Gelman A 2017. Measurement error and the replication crisis. Science 6325:584–85
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Maxwell SE, Lau MY, Howard GS 2015. Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean?. Am. Psychol. 70:487–98
    [Google Scholar]
  39. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius 567 U.S 519 2012.
  40. Nicholson SP, Hansford TG 2014. Partisans in robes: party cues and public acceptance of Supreme Court decisions. Am. J. Political Sci. 58:620–36
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey 505 U.S 833 1992.
  42. Posner RA 1988. The jurisprudence of skepticism. Mich. Law Rev. 86:827–91
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Posner RA 1993. The Problems of Jurisprudence Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  44. Posner RA 1995. Judges’ writing styles (and do they matter?). Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 62:1421–49
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Ramirez MD 2008. Procedural perceptions and support for the US Supreme Court. Political Psychol 29:675–98
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Ratzlaf v. United States 510 U.S 135 1994.
  47. Robinson RR 2014. It's how you say it: ameliorating motivated reactions to judicial rulings using aporetic reasoning. SSRN Aug. 16. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2431009
  48. Rosenthal JS, Yoon AH 2011. Detecting multiple authorship of United States Supreme Court legal decisions using function words. Ann. Appl. Stat. 5:283–308
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Schacter JS 2016. Obergefell's audiences. Ohio St. Law J. 77:1011–37
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Schauer F 1995. Giving reasons. Stanford Law Rev 47:633–59
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Shapiro M 1992. The giving reasons requirement. Univ. Chicago Legal Forum 1992:179–220
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Simon D 1998. A psychological model of judicial decision making. Rutgers Law J 30:1–142
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Simon D, Scurich N 2011. Lay judgments of judicial decision-making. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 8:709–27
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Simon D, Scurich N 2013.a Judicial overstating. Chicago Kent Law Rev 88:411–31
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Simon D, Scurich N 2013.b The effect of legal expert commentary on lay judgments of judicial decision making. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 10:799–816
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Singer JW 1988. Legal realism now. Calif. Law Rev. 76:465–503
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Spill RL, Oxley ZM 2003. Philosopher kings or political actors—how the media portray the Supreme Court. Judicature 87:22–29
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Sunstein CR 2007. Republic.com 2.0 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  59. Tolk D 1995. Ratzlafv. United States: Willful violation of antistructuring law requires knowledge that conduct is unlawful. J. Contemp. Law 21:135–44
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Tushnet M 1994. Style and the Supreme Court's educational role in government. Const. Comment. 11:215–25
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Tyler TR 2006. Why People Obey the Law Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  62. Tyler TR, Krochik M 2013. Deference to authority as a basis for managing ideological conflict. Chicago Kent Law Rev 88:433–54
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Tyler TR, Mitchell G 1994. Legitimacy and the empowerment of discretionary legal authority: the United States Supreme Court and abortion rights. Duke Law J 43:735–65
    [Google Scholar]
  64. United States v. Morris 977 F. 2d 617 (DC Cir 1992.
  65. Wald PM 1995. The rhetoric of results and the results of rhetoric: judicial writings. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 62:1371–419
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Wechsler H 1959. Toward neutral principles of constitutional law. Harvard Law Rev 73:1–35
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Weinstein JB 2014. The dialogue. Blindfolds Off: Judges on How They Decide Cases J Cohen 284–94 Chicago: Am. Bar Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Wells M 1994. French and American judicial opinions. Yale J. Int. Law 19:81–133
    [Google Scholar]
  69. White GE 1973. The evolution of reasoned elaboration: jurisprudential criticism and social change. Va. Law Rev. 59:279–302
    [Google Scholar]
  70. White JB 1995. What's an opinion for. Univ. Chicago Law. Rev. 62:1363–69
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Wilentz RN 1984. Judicial legitimacy—finding the law. Seton Hall Legis. J. 8:221–47
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-031050
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-031050
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error