Intersecting Identities and Perceptions of Judicial Misconduct

Objective Traditionally, the judicial branch of the US government is viewed most favorably by the general public. Recent and highly publicized misconduct of judicial figures has jeopardized this public opinion favorability. We test the public opinion consequences of judicial misconduct. Method We implement a survey experiment and manipulate the type of misconduct, the target of the misconduct, and the identity of the judge. We measure whether judicial misconduct that is discriminatory in nature shapes attitudes about whether the judge is a threat to the rights of minority groups and able to rule fairly in cases involving these groups (N = 3160). Results We find people view judges accused of discriminatory misconduct as a threat to the rights of minority groups. Judges accused of discriminatory misconduct are viewed as less likely to side with the groups they target in cases concerning birth control, housing advertisements, and voting rights. These results mostly hold regardless of the identity of the judge. Conclusion Judicial misconduct that is discriminatory in nature may harm beliefs about how judges perform their jobs, particularly when they are tasked with ruling on cases involving minority groups. Individual discriminatory action from judges shapes perceptions of bias in the judiciary.