Public Opinion

In his dissent in Baker v. Carr (369 US 186 [1962]), Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter identified the dependence of the US Supreme Court (or any US court, for that matter) on its legitimacy among the mass public: “The Court’s authority—possessed of neither the purse nor the sword—ultimately rests upon sustained public confidence in its moral sanction” (369 US 186, 267). To put it simply, without legitimacy, without the public’s acceptance, or at least tolerance, for its decisions, the Court is powerless. While Justice Frankfurter was speaking to the US case, his sentiments, as the studies in this section show, can be applied more broadly. Thus studies examining the forces associated with public confidence in the judiciary are a staple in judicial politics research.

This section contains five such examples. First, Professors Lippert, Wedeking, and Black present two experiments, each designed to test whether visual cues increase citizen knowledge. It has long been known that the Court is steeped in legal symbols, and their presence may affect attitudes toward the Court. Here, these scholars show clearly that visual cues substantially condition knowledge about the Court, and this has significant implications for perceptions and evaluations of the Court and its work. Next, Professors Fix, Randazzo, and Martin broaden our lens to the judiciaries of Eastern Europe and examine how public confidence in the courts might develop in newly democratized nations. Perhaps not surprisingly, they find that how far along a country has traveled toward democracy and strong institutional bases for the judiciary makes a considerable difference in public support. However, these effects are not independent of general support for other governmental institutions, revealing that the echoes of a unitary system are not easily shrugged off. Last, Professor Morgan examines the Court’s resilience in the face of attack. Using an experimental design, he finds that partisan attacks on the judiciary’s democratic credentials may land glancing blows at best. In short, the Court’s reservoir of legitimacy remains resilient. Professors Kenneth Fernandez and Jason Husser examine the forces that systematically affect variation in public support for state courts. After reviewing the nature of the judicial systems across the 50 states, they focus their analysis on survey data measuring public support for the state courts in North Carolina. They find that levels of support vary with forces such as education, age, race, and ideology. Their findings are highly relevant given the large policy-making role the states play in our federal system. Finally, Professors Strother and Johnson take up the question of the degree to which the US Supreme Court responds to mass public opinion. Settling a long-standing debate in the discipline, they find little empirical support for the Court bending to the whims of the public’s preferences.

“Citizen Knowledge and the U.S. Supreme Court” by Anne Lippert; Justin Wedeking; and Ryan C. Black

“Public Attitudes toward State Courts” by Kenneth E. Fernandez and Jason A. Husser

“The Impact of Democratic Consolidation on Public Confidence in Courts” by Michael P. Fix; Kirk A. Randazzo; and Ana R. Martin

“Does the U.S. Supreme Court Respond to Public Opinion?” by Ben Johnson and Logan Strother

“Experimentally Measuring Responsiveness to Criticisms of the U.S. Supreme Court as Antidemocractic” by Kyle J. Morgan