1932

Abstract

Research on the legitimacy of the US Supreme Court has blossomed of late, with scholars investigating many different hypotheses derived from legitimacy theory. As the theory has been pushed, a number of new controversies have emerged. Here, we identify four such debates: () whether the Court's legitimacy rests on satisfaction with its performance, () whether support for the Supreme Court reflects the polarization of politics in the contemporary United States, () whether the Court's legitimacy requires belief in the “myth of legality”, and () whether judicial decisions can change public opinion. Our analysis of these issues generally concludes that the Supreme Court's legitimacy is reasonably secure, in part because individual rulings have little impact on support for the institution, in part because the Court has access to powerful and influential symbols of judicial authority, and in part because the current Supreme Court issues roughly equal numbers of conservative and liberal decisions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030546
2014-11-03
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/10/1/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030546.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030546&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Am. Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Smith 496 U.S 167 1990.
  2. Bailey MA, Maltzman F. 2008. Does legal doctrine matter? Unpacking law and policy influences on the U. S Supreme Court. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 102:3369–84 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baird VA. 2001. Building institutional legitimacy: the role of procedural justice. Polit. Res. Q. 54:2333–54 [Google Scholar]
  4. 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. Polit. Psychol. 27:4597–614 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barabas J, Jerit J. 2009. Estimating the causal effects of media coverage on policy-specific knowledge. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 53:73–89 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barabas J, Jerit J. 2010. Are survey experiments externally valid?. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 104:2226–42 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bartels BL, Johnston CD. 2013. On the ideological foundations of Supreme Court legitimacy in the American public. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 57:1184–99 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bartels BL, Mutz DC. 2009. Explaining processes of institutional opinion leadership. J. Polit. 71:1214–61 [Google Scholar]
  9. Benesh SC. 2006. Understanding public confidence in American courts. J. Polit. 68:3697–707 [Google Scholar]
  10. Benesh SC, Scherer N, Steigerwalt A. 2009. Public perceptions of the lower federal courts Presented at Annu. Meet. Midwest Polit. Sci. Assoc., Apr. 2–5, Chicago
  11. Black RC, Owens RJ. 2009. Agenda setting in the Supreme Court: the collision of policy and jurisprudence. J. Polit. 71:31062–75 [Google Scholar]
  12. Booth JA, Seligson MA. 2009. The Legitimacy Puzzle in Latin America: Political Support and Democracy in Eight Nations New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  13. Breyer S. 2007. Judicial independence: remarks by Justice Breyer. Georgetown Law J. 95:903–7 [Google Scholar]
  14. Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S 483 1954.
  15. Bush v. Gore 531 U.S 98 2000.
  16. Bush v. Vera 517 U.S 952 1996.
  17. Bybee KJ. 2012. Paying attention to what judges say: new directions in the study of judicial decision making. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 8:69–84 [Google Scholar]
  18. Caldeira GA, Gibson JL. 1992. The etiology of public support for the Supreme Court. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 36:3635–64 [Google Scholar]
  19. Casey G. 1974. The Supreme Court and myth: an empirical investigation. Law Soc. Rev. 8:385–419 [Google Scholar]
  20. Chong D, Druckman JN. 2007. A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. J. Commun. 57:199–118 [Google Scholar]
  21. Chong D, Druckman JN. 2013. Counterframing effects. J. Polit. 75:11–16 [Google Scholar]
  22. Christenson DP, Glick DM. 2014. Roberts's health care decision disrobed: the micro-foundations of the Court's legitimacy Work. Pap., Dep. Polit. Sci., Boston Univ.
  23. Clark TS. 2011. The Limits of Judicial Independence New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  24. Clawson RA, Kegler ER, Waltenburg EN. 2001. The legitimacy-conferring authority of the U.S. Supreme Court: an experimental design. Am. Polit. Res. 29:6566–91 [Google Scholar]
  25. Collins T, Cooper C. 2014. Case Salience Index West. Carol. Univ., Cullowhee, NC, accessed Jan. 15, 2014. http://www.wcu.edu/about-wcu/centers-institutes-affiliates/public-policy-institute/case-salience.asp
  26. Crawford J. 2012. Roberts switched views to uphold health care law. CBS News July 1, accessed Apr. 30, 2013. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/
  27. Cross FB. 1997. Political science and the new legal realism: a case of unfortunate interdisciplinary ignorance. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 92:1251–326 [Google Scholar]
  28. Dahl R. 1957. Decision-making in a democracy: the supreme court as national policy-maker. J. Public Law 6:2279–95 [Google Scholar]
  29. Druckman J. 2001. On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame?. J. Polit. 63:41041–66 [Google Scholar]
  30. Durr RH, Martin AD, Wolbrecht C. 2000. Ideological divergence and public support for the Supreme Court. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 44:4768–76 [Google Scholar]
  31. Dworkin R. 2009. Justice Sotomayor: the unjust hearings. New York Review of Books 56:14 Sept. 24, accessed June 13, 2014. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23052 [Google Scholar]
  32. Easton D. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life New York: Wiley
  33. Epstein L, Segal J. 2000. Measuring issue salience. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 44:166–83 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ewick P, Silbey SS. 1998. The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  35. Fallon RH Jr. 2005. Legitimacy and the Constitution. Harvard Law Rev. 118:61789–853 [Google Scholar]
  36. Farganis D. 2012. Do reasons matter? The impact of opinion content on Supreme Court legitimacy. Polit. Res. Q. 65:1206–16 [Google Scholar]
  37. Fiscus RJ. 1991. Of constitutions and constitutional interpretation. Polity 24:2313–22 [Google Scholar]
  38. Franklin C, Kosaki LC. 1989. Republican schoolmaster: the U.S. Supreme Court, public opinion, and abortion. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 83:751–73 [Google Scholar]
  39. Gibson JL. 1983. From simplicity to complexity: the development of theory in the study of judicial behavior. Polit. Behav. 5:17–49 [Google Scholar]
  40. Gibson JL. 2007a. Changes in American veneration for the rule of law. DePaul Law Rev. 56:2593–614 [Google Scholar]
  41. Gibson JL. 2007b. The legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court in a polarized polity. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 4:3507–38 [Google Scholar]
  42. Gibson JL. 2011. A note of caution about the meaning of “The Supreme Court can usually be trusted….”. Law Courts: Newsl. Law Courts Sect. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc. 21:310–16 [Google Scholar]
  43. Gibson JL. 2012a. Electing Judges: The Surprising Effects of Campaigning on Judicial Legitimacy Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  44. Gibson JL. 2012b. Public reverence for the United States Supreme Court: Is the Court invincible? Presented at Countermajor. Conf., Univ. Tex. Law Sch., Mar. 29–30, Austin
  45. Gibson JL. 2014. Legitimacy is for losers: the interconnections of institutional legitimacy, performance evaluations, and the symbols of judicial authority (keynote address). Presented at Neb. Symp. Motiv., 62nd—Motivating Cooperation and Compliance with Authority: The Role(s) of Institutional Trust and Confidence, Apr. 24–25, Lincoln, NE
  46. Gibson JL, Caldeira GA. 1992. Blacks and the United States Supreme Court: models of diffuse support. J. Polit. 54:41120–45 [Google Scholar]
  47. Gibson JL, Caldeira GA. 2009. Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  48. Gibson JL, Caldeira GA. 2011. Has legal realism damaged the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?. Law Soc. Rev. 45:1195–219 [Google Scholar]
  49. Gibson JL, Caldeira GA, Baird V. 1998. On the legitimacy of national high courts. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 92:2343–58 [Google Scholar]
  50. Gibson JL, Caldeira GA, Spence LK. 2003a. Measuring attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 47:2354–67 [Google Scholar]
  51. Gibson JL, Caldeira GA, Spence LK. 2003b. The Supreme Court and the U.S. presidential election of 2000: Wounds, self-inflicted or otherwise?. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 33:4535–56 [Google Scholar]
  52. Gibson JL, Caldeira GA, Spence LK. 2005. Why do people accept public policies they oppose? Testing legitimacy theory with a survey-based experiment. Polit. Res. Q. 58:2187–201 [Google Scholar]
  53. Gibson JL, Gouws A. 2003. Overcoming Intolerance in South Africa: Experiments in Democratic Persuasion New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  54. Gibson JL, Lodge M, Woodson B. 2014. Losing, but accepting: legitimacy, positivity theory, and the symbols of judicial authority. Law Soc. Rev. In press
  55. Gibson JL, Nelson MJ. 2014a. Can the U.S. Supreme Court have too much legitimacy?. Making Law and Courts Research Relevant: The Normative Implications of Empirical Research (in Law and Courts) BL Bartels, CW Bonneau 169–79 New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  56. Gibson JL, Nelson MJ. 2014b. Is the U.S. Supreme Court's legitimacy grounded in performance satisfaction and ideology?. Am. J. Polit. Sci. In press
  57. Grosskopf A, Mondak JJ. 1998. Do attitudes toward specific Supreme Court decisions matter? The impact of Webster and Texas v. Johnson on public confidence in the Supreme Court. Polit. Res. Q. 51:3633–54 [Google Scholar]
  58. Hoekstra VJ. 1995. The Supreme Court and opinion change: an experimental study of the Court's ability to change opinion. Am. Polit. Res. 23:1109–29 [Google Scholar]
  59. Hoekstra VJ, Segal JA. 1996. The shepherding of local public opinion: the Supreme Court and Lamb's Chapel. J. Polit. 58:1079–102 [Google Scholar]
  60. Jerit J, Barabas J, Bolsen T. 2006. Citizens, knowledge, and the information environment. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 51:266–82 [Google Scholar]
  61. Johnson TR, Martin AD. 1998. The public's conditional response to Supreme Court decisions. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 92:299–310 [Google Scholar]
  62. Jost JT, Major B. 2001. The Psychology of Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice, and Intergroup Relations New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  63. Keck TM. 2009. Beyond backlash: assessing the impact of judicial decisions on LBGT rights. Law Soc. Rev. 43:1151–85 [Google Scholar]
  64. Klarman MJ. 2004. From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality. New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  65. Kozinski A. 1993. What I ate for breakfast and other mysteries of judicial decision making. Loyola L.A. Law Rev. 26:993–99 [Google Scholar]
  66. Linos K, Twist K. 2013. Endorsement and framing effects in experimental and natural settings: the Supreme Court, the media and the American public UC Berkeley Public Law Res. Pap. No. 2223732, Berkeley, CA, accessed Jan. 20, 2014. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2223732
  67. Liptak A. 2010. Why newer appointees offer fewer surprises. New York Times Apr. 17, accessed Jan. 14, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/us/18memo.html
  68. Liptak A. 2011. Doing the judicial math on health care. New York Times Feb. 5, accessed Jan. 14, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/weekinreview/06liptak.html
  69. Lodge M, Taber CS. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  70. Marshall TR. 1987. The Supreme Court as an opinion leader: Court decisions and the mass public. Am. Polit. Res. 15:1147–68 [Google Scholar]
  71. Marshall TR. 1989. Public Opinion and the Supreme Court Boston: Unwin Hyman
  72. Marshall TR. 2008. Public Opinion and the Rehnquist Court Albany: State Univ. N.Y. Press
  73. Mondak JJ, Smithey SI. 1997. The dynamics of public support for the Supreme Court. J. Polit. 59:1114–42 [Google Scholar]
  74. Murphy WF, Tanenhaus J. 1968. Public opinion and the United States Supreme Court: a preliminary mapping of some prerequisites for Court legitimation of regime changes. Law Soc. Rev. 2:3357–84 [Google Scholar]
  75. Murphy WF, Tanenhaus J. 1990. Publicity, public opinion, and the Court. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 84:985–1023 [Google Scholar]
  76. Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius 132 S. Ct 2566 2012.
  77. Nicholson SP, Hansford TG. 2014. Partisans in robes: party cues and public acceptance of Supreme Court decisions. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 58:3620–36 [Google Scholar]
  78. Norris P. 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  79. Packer G. 2006. Unrealistic. New Yorker Nov. 27 83
  80. Peller G. 1985. The metaphysics of American law. Calif. Law Rev. 73:41151–290 [Google Scholar]
  81. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey 510 U.S 1309 1992.
  82. Pound R. 1908. Mechanical jurisprudence. Columbia Law Rev. 8:605–23 [Google Scholar]
  83. Ramirez M. 2008. Procedural perceptions and support for the U.S. Supreme Court. Polit. Psychol. 29:5675–98 [Google Scholar]
  84. Richards MJ, Kritzer HM. 2002. Jurisprudential regimes in Supreme Court decision making. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 96:2305–20 [Google Scholar]
  85. Riley P. 1982. Will and Political Legitimacy: A Critical Exposition of Social Contract Theory in Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Hegel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  86. Rosenberg GN. 2008. The Hollow Hope Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2nd ed..
  87. Ross WG. 2012. The Supreme Court as an issue in presidential campaigns. J. Supreme Court Hist. 37:3322–34 [Google Scholar]
  88. Salamone MF. 2014. Judicial consensus and public opinion: conditional response to Supreme Court majority size. Polit. Res. Q. 67:2320–34 [Google Scholar]
  89. Scheb JM II, Lyons W. 2000. The myth of legality and public evaluation of the Supreme Court. Soc. Sci. Q. 81:4928–40 [Google Scholar]
  90. Scherer N, Curry B. 2010. Does descriptive race representation enhance institutional legitimacy? The case of the U.S. courts. J. Polit. 72:90–104 [Google Scholar]
  91. Segal JA, Spaeth HJ. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  92. Segal JA, Spaeth HJ. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  93. Simon D, Scurich N. 2011. Lay judgments of judicial decision making. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 8:4709–27 [Google Scholar]
  94. Singer JW. 1988. Legal realism now. Calif. Law Rev. 762465–544 [Review of Kalman, L. 1986 Legal Realism At Yale: 1927–1960 Chapel Hill: Univ. N.C. Press.] [Google Scholar]
  95. Slotnick EE, Segal JA. 1998. Television News and the Supreme Court: All the News That's Fit to Air? New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  96. Stolberg SG. 2012. Future of an aging Court raises stakes of presidential vote. New York Times June 27, accessed Jan. 15, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/us/presidential-election-could-reshape-an-aging-supreme-court.html
  97. Stoutenborough JW, Haider-Markel DP, Allen MD. 2006. Re-assessing the impact of Supreme Court decisions on public opinion: gay civil rights cases. Polit. Res. Q. 59:3419–33 [Google Scholar]
  98. Tamanaha BZ. 2009. Understanding legal realism. Tex. Law Rev. 87:731–85 [Google Scholar]
  99. Tanenhaus J, Murphy WF. 1981. Patterns of public support for the Supreme Court: a panel study. J. Polit. 43:24–39 [Google Scholar]
  100. Tyler TR. 2006. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57:375–400 [Google Scholar]
  101. Ura JD. 2014. Backlash and legitimation: macro political responses to Supreme Court decisions. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 58:1110–26 [Google Scholar]
  102. Vanberg G. 2001. Legislative-judicial relations: a game-theoretic approach to constitutional review. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 45:2346–61 [Google Scholar]
  103. Wells ML. 2007. Sociological legitimacy in Supreme Court opinions. Washington Lee Law Rev. 64:1011–70 [Google Scholar]
  104. Worcester v. Georgia 31 U.S 515 1832.
  105. Zaller JR. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  106. Zink JR, Spriggs JF II, Scott JT. 2009. Courting the public: the influence of decision attributes on individuals' views of court opinions. J. Polit. 71:3909–25 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030546
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030546
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