IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0294525.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Institutional hybridity and policy-motivated reasoning structure public evaluations of the Supreme Court

Author

Listed:
  • Shana Kushner Gadarian
  • Logan Strother

Abstract

How does the public assess the Supreme Court and its work? Using data from three surveys conducted over a span of ten years, we show that individuals’ policy preferences drive evaluations of the Court and its willingness to reform the Court. We find strong evidence that the Court’s hybrid legal-political nature enables a unique form of policy-motivated reasoning: respondents who agree with Court outputs view the Court and its work as more “legal” in nature, while those who disagree view both as more “political.” Our findings stand in contrast to longstanding views in the literature that the public views the Court as a fundamentally different sort of institution that stands largely separate from politics. The fact that policy attitudes powerfully inform the public’s assessment of the Court has crucial implications for the ongoing debates over Supreme Court power.

Suggested Citation

  • Shana Kushner Gadarian & Logan Strother, 2023. "Institutional hybridity and policy-motivated reasoning structure public evaluations of the Supreme Court," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(11), pages 1-15, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0294525
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294525
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0294525
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0294525&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0294525?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dino P. Christenson & David M. Glick, 2015. "Chief Justice Roberts's Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court's Legitimacy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(2), pages 403-418, February.
    2. Martin Bisgaard, 2019. "How Getting the Facts Right Can Fuel Partisan‐Motivated Reasoning," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(4), pages 824-839, October.
    3. Little, Andrew T. & Schnakenberg, Keith E. & Turner, Ian R., 2022. "Motivated Reasoning and Democratic Accountability," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 116(2), pages 751-767, May.
    4. Brandon L. Bartels & Christopher D. Johnston, 2013. "On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(1), pages 184-199, January.
    5. James L. Gibson & Michael J. Nelson, 2015. "Is the U.S. Supreme Court's Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(1), pages 162-174, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James R. Rogers & Joseph Daniel Ura, 2020. "A majoritarian basis for judicial countermajoritarianism," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(3), pages 435-459, July.
    2. Scott Simon Boddery & Damon Cann & Laura Moyer & Jeff Yates, 2023. "The role of cable news hosts in public support for Supreme Court decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 1045-1069, December.
    3. Agustin Casas & Federico Curci & Antoni-Italo De Moragas, 2022. "Checks and Balances and Nation Building: The Spanish Constitutional Court and Catalonia," Working Papers 189, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    4. Risa Kitagawa, 2024. "Justice as fairness or retribution? Citizen reactions to domestic trials of wartime violence," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(4), pages 612-626, July.
    5. Nathan T. Carrington & Logan Strother, 2023. "Plugging the pipe? Evaluating the (null) effects of leaks on Supreme Court legitimacy," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 669-712, September.
    6. Kirsten Martin & Ari Waldman, 2023. "Are Algorithmic Decisions Legitimate? The Effect of Process and Outcomes on Perceptions of Legitimacy of AI Decisions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(3), pages 653-670, March.
    7. Daniel J. Blake & Stanislav Markus & Julio Martinez‐Suarez, 2024. "Populist Syndrome and Nonmarket Strategy," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 525-560, March.
    8. Thora Giallouri & Elli Menounou, 2024. "Breaking the bank: Personal financial interests of Supreme Court justices and institutional legitimacy," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1164-1179, July.
    9. repec:osf:osfxxx:gyz3h_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Christopher N. Krewson & Jean R. Schroedel, 2020. "Public Views of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Aftermath of the Kavanaugh Confirmation," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1430-1441, July.
    11. Lackner, Mario & Sunde, Uwe & Winter-Ebmer, Rudolf, 2021. "Covid-19 and the Forces Behind Social Unrest," IHS Working Paper Series 37, Institute for Advanced Studies.
    12. Yamagishi, Atsushi, 2020. "School bullying is positively associated with support for redistribution in adulthood," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    13. Damon Cann & Jeff Yates, 2021. "Evaluating diffuse support for state high courts among individuals with varying levels of policy agreement," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2824-2835, November.
    14. Frank Bohn & Xue Wang, 2022. "Rational erraticism," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 34(2), pages 219-235, April.
    15. Nathan T. Carrington & Colin French, 2021. "One Bad Apple Spoils the Bunch: Kavanaugh and Change in Institutional Support for the Supreme Court," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1484-1495, July.
    16. Kayla S. Canelo, 2022. "Citations to Interest Groups and Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 189-222, March.
    17. Christopher Brough & Li‐Yin Liu & Yao‐Yuan Yeh, 2024. "Judicial reasoning, individual cultural types, and support for COVID‐19 vaccine mandates," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(3), pages 448-470, May.
    18. Gloria Danqiao Cheng & Serena Does & Margaret Shih, 2024. "Partisan differences in perceived levels of democracy across presidential administrations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    19. Maor Zeev‐Wolf & Avital Mentovich, 2022. "The influence of the legislative and judicial branches on moral judgment and norm perception with the special case of judicial intervention," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 1211-1232, October.
    20. Mario Lackner & Uwe Sunde & Rudolf Winter-Ebmer, 2025. "The forces behind social unrest: Evidence from the Covid-19 pandemic," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(1), pages 1-17, January.
    21. Alrababah, Ala & Casalis, Marine & Masterson, Daniel & Hangartner, Dominik & Wehrli, & Weinstein, Jeremy, 2023. "Reducing Attrition in Phone-based Panel Surveys: A Web Application to Facilitate Best Practices and Semi-Automate Survey Workflow," OSF Preprints gyz3h, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0294525. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.