Do judicial dissents affect mass politics? The conventional wisdom is that unanimous rulings boost support for Supreme Court decisions, while division fuels popular opposition. However, empirical analysis of public reaction to unanimity and dissent is sparse, incomplete, and inconsistent. Through a series of survey experiments, I expand upon existing research on public opinion of judicial unity. I find that reaction to judicial consensus is dependent on the ideological salience of the issue involved and that, contrary to conventional wisdom and recent findings, dissent can foster acceptance of rulings among the Court’s opponents by suggesting evidence of procedural justice.
BartelsBrandon L.MutzDiana C.2009. “Explaining Processes of Institutional Opinion Leadership.” Journal of Politics71 (1): 249–61.
2.
BoydChristina L.EpsteinLeeMartinAndrew D.2010. “Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging.” American Journal of Political Science54 (2): 389–411.
3.
BrickmanDanettePetersonDavid. 2006. “Public Opinion Reaction to Repeated Events: Citizen Response to Multiple Supreme Court Abortion Decisions.” Political Behavior28 (1): 87–112.
4.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
5.
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
6.
CaldeiraGregory A.GibsonJames L.1992. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science36 (3): 635–64.
7.
ChaikenShelly. 1980. “Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39 (5): 752–66.
8.
ClawsonRosalee A.KeglerElizabeth R.WaltenburgEric N.2001. “The Legitimacy-Conferring Authority of the U.S. Supreme Court: An Experimental Design.” American Politics Research29 (6): 566–91.
9.
ClawsonRosalee A.WaltenburgEric N.2009. Legacy and Legitimacy: Black Americans and the Supreme Court. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
10.
DavisRichard. 2011. Justices and Journalists: The U.S. Supreme Court and the Media. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
EpsteinLeeHoDaniel E.KingGarySegalJeffrey A.2005. “The Supreme Court During Crisis: How War Affects Only Non-War Cases.” New York University Law Review80 (1): 1–116.
13.
FranklinCharles H.KosakiLiane C.1989. “Republican Schoolmaster: The U.S. Supreme Court, Public Opinion, and Abortion.” American Political Science Review83 (3): 751–771.
14.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.2003. “Defenders of Democracy? Legitimacy, Popular Acceptance, and the South African Constitutional Court.” Journal of Politics65 (1): 1–30.
15.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.BairdVanessa A.1998. “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts.” American Political Science Review92 (2): 343–58
16.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester K.2003a. “Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science47 (2): 354–67.
17.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester K.2003b. “The Supreme Court and the US Presidential Election of 2000: Wounds, Self-Inflicted or Otherwise?” British Journal of Political Science33 (04): 535–56.
18.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.LesterSpence K.2005. “Why Do People Accept Public Policies They Oppose? Testing Legitimacy Theory with a Survey-Based Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly58 (2): 187–201.
19.
GordonSanford C.HuberGregory A.2007. “The Effect of Electoral Competitiveness on Incumbent Behavior.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science2 (2): 107–38.
20.
GrosskopfAnkeMondakJeffery J.1998. “Do Attitudes toward Specific Supreme Court Decisions Matter? The Impact of Webster and Texas v. Johnson on Public Confidence in the Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly51 (3): 633–54.
21.
HandLearned. 1958. The Bill of Rights. New York: Atheneum.
22.
HaynieStacia L.1992. “Leadership and Consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics54 (4): 1158–69.
23.
HoekstraValerie J.2003. Public Reaction to Supreme Court Decisions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
HughesCharles Evans. 1928. The Supreme Court of the United States: Its Foundation, Methods and Achievements. New York: Columbia University Press.
25.
JohnsonTimothy R.MartinAndrew D.1998. “The Public’s Conditional Response to Supreme Court Decisions.” American Political Science Review92 (2): 299–309.
26.
KlarmanMichael J.2004. From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality. New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
LehneRichardReynoldsJohn. 1978. “The Impact of Judicial Activism on Public Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science22 (4): 896–904.
28.
LindEdgar AllenTylerTom R.1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Springer.
29.
MarshallThomas R.1987. “The Supreme Court as an Opinion Leader: Court Decisions and the Mass Public.” American Politics Research15 (1): 147–68.
30.
MateManojWrightMatthew. 2008. “The 2000 Presidential Election Controversy.” In Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy, edited by PersilyNathanielCitrinJackEganPatrick J.333–52. New York: Oxford University.
31.
MooreRyan. 2010. “Blocking Political Science Experiments: Why, How, and Then What?” The Experimental Political Scientist1 (1): 3–5.
32.
MoorheadR. Dean. 1952. “Concurring and Dissenting Opinions.” American Bar Association Journal38:821–24, 884.
33.
MurakamiMichael. 2008. “Desegregation.” In Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy, edited by PersilyNathanielCitrinJackEganPatrick J.18–40. New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
MurphyWalter F.TanenhausJosephKastnerDaniel L.1973. Public evaluations of constitutional courts, alternative explanations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
PetersonSteven A.1981. “Dissent in American Courts.” Journal of Politics43 (2): 412–34.
37.
PettyRichared E.CacioppoJohn T.1979. “Issue Involvement Can Increase or Decrease Persuasion by Enhancing Message-Relevant Cognitive Responses.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37 (10): 1915–26.
38.
PettyRichared E.CacioppoJohn T.1986. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by BerkowitzLeonard, Vol. 19, 123–205. San Diego: Academic Press.
39.
PettyRichard E.CacioppoJohn T.GoldmanRachel. 1981. “Personal Involvement as a Determinant of Argument-Based Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology41 (5): 847–55.
40.
Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895).
41.
RathjenGregory J.1974. “An Analysis of Separate Opinion Writing Behavior as Dissonance Reduction.” American Politics Research2 (4): 393–411.
42.
SekhonJasjeet S.2009. “Opiates for the Matches: Matching Methods for Causal Inference.” Annual Review of Political Science12:487–508.
43.
SekhonJasjeet S.2011. “Multivariate and Propensity Score Matching Software with Automated Balance Optimization: The Matching Package for R.” Journal of Statistical Software42 (7): 1–52.
44.
StoutenboroughJames W.Haider-MarkelDonald P.AllenMahalley D.2006. “Reassessing the Impact of Supreme Court Decisions on Public Opinion: Gay Civil Rights Cases.” Political Research Quarterly59 (3): 419–33.
45.
ThibautJohnWalkerLaurens1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46.
TylerTom R.2006. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
47.
UlmerS. Sidney. 1971. “Earl Warren and the Brown Decision.” Journal of Politics33 (3): 689–702.
48.
WahlbeckPaul J.SpriggsJames F.MaltzmanForrest. 1999. “The Politics of Dissents and Concurrences on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Politics Research27 (4): 488–514.
49.
WalkerThomas G.EpsteinLeeDixonWilliam J.1988. “On the Mysterious Demise of Consensual Norms in the United States Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics50 (2): 361–89.
50.
ZallerJohn R.1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
51.
ZinkJames R.SpriggsJames F.ScottJohn T.2009. “Courting the Public: The Influence of Decision Attributes on Individuals Views of Court Opinions.” Journal of Politics71 (3): 909–25.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
