Work

A Matter of Opinion? How Unexpected Opinion Authors Influence Support for Supreme Court Decisions

Year: 2024

Type: article

Abstract: Examples abound of Supreme Court justices writing opinions because their ideological preferences or identity characteristics run counter to case outcomes, like when devoted Methodist and Nixon appointee Harry Blackmun wrote the opinion codifying abortion rights inRoe v. Wade(1973). These stories suggest that in some controversial cases, the justices ask such incongruent justices to explain decisions because they believe those justices can underscore an opinion’s legal soundness and increase support for it. Does it work? We asked participants in two survey experiments to read about a pro-abortion or pro-death penalty ruling written by justices of differing ideologies and genders, and then we asked them to respond to the ruling. Their responses indicate that deploying identity-incongruent justices can influence responses, but not the way the justices expect. We find that incongruent opinion writers can reduce partisan differences in support for a Court decision but do not broadly increase public.

Source: Journal of Law and Courts

DOI: 10.1017/jlc.2023.15

Authors: Jonathan M. King, Jessica A. Schoenherr

Institutions: West Virginia University, University of South Carolina

Language: English

Topic: Judicial and Constitutional Studies

Subfield: Law

Field: Social Sciences

Domain: Social Sciences

SDG: Peace, justice, and strong institutions

Open Access status: hybrid

Estimated APC paid: $3,450