The news media acts as a “watchdog” over political institutions by holding them accountable for their actions through critical commentary. Being that the Supreme Court rarely interacts directly with the public, the news media is the primary mechanism through which individuals become aware of the Supreme Court’s actions and decisions. Thus, for the Supreme Court, the news media’s role as a “watchdog” takes greater meaning than it does for institutions that often speak directly to the public. Considering this, along with the Supreme Court’s use of strategic presentation, we argue that news media attention to particular cases will influence the extent to which the Supreme Court deliberates on argued cases. We find support for our hypothesis in four contexts. First, cases with more news media attention take longer to produce a published opinion. Second, cases with greater media attention are more likely to be reargued. Third, cases with more news media attention produce a higher number of draft opinions before being published. Fourth, cases with more news media attention produce opinions with a greater share of cognitive mechanisms included in them. Our results have implications for the Justice’s use of strategic behavior and the potential constraints faced by the Court in its decision-making.
ArcenauexKevinDunawayJohnannaJohnsonMartinVander WeilenRyan J. 2020. “Strategic Canddiate Entry and Congressional Elections in the Era of Fox News.” American Journal of Political Science64 (2): 398–415.
2.
ArcenauexKevinDunawayJohnannaJohnsonMartinVander WeilenRyan J. 2016. “The Influence of News Media on Political Elites: Investigating Strategic Responseviness in Congress.” American Journal of Political Science60 (1): 5–29.
3.
ArmalyMilesTLaneElizabeth A. 2022. Politicized Battles: How Vacancies and Partisanship Influence Support for the Supreme Court. New York, NY: American Politics Research.
4.
BadasAlex. 2019. “Policy Disagreement and Judicial Legitimacy: Evidence from the 1937 Court Packing Plan.” The Journal of Legal Studies42 (2): 377–408.
5.
BailardCatie S.2016. “Corporate Ownership and News Bias Revisited: Newspaper Coverage of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United Ruling.” Political Communication33: 583–604.
6.
BairdVanessa A.AmyGangl.. 2006. “Shattering the Myth of Legalty: The Impact of the Media’s Framing of Supreme Court Procedures on Perceptions of Fairness.” Political Psychology27 (4): 597–614.
7.
BartelsBrandon L.JohnstonChristopher D.. 2012. “On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public.” American Journal of Political Science57: 184–199.
8.
BaumLawrence. 1994. “What judges want: Judges’ goals and judicial behavior.” Political Research Quarterly47 (3): 749–768.
9.
BaumLawrence. 2009. Judges and their audiences: A perspective on judicial behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
BednarMichael K.2012. “Watchdog or lapdog? A behavioral view of the media as a corporate governance mechanism.” Academy of Management Journal55 (1): 131–150.
11.
BlackRyan C.OwensRyan J.. 2009. “Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court: The Collision of Policy and Jurisprudence.” The Journal of Politics71 (3): 1062–1075.
12.
BlackRyan C.OwensJ. WedekingJustinRyanWohlfarthPatrick. 2016b. “The In- fluence of Public Sentiment on Supreme Court Opinion Clarity.” Law/& Soceity Review50 (3): 703–732.
13.
BlackRyan CRyan OwensJJustinWedeking. 2016a. Herding Scorpions: The Chief Justice as Social Leader. In: The Chief Justice: Appointment and Influence, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 281–305.
14.
BlackRyan CJohnsonTimothy RJustinWedeking. 2012. Oral Arguments and Coalition Formation on the US Supreme Court: A Deliberate Dialogue. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
15.
BramanEileenEasterBeth. 2014. “Normative Legitimacy: Rules of Appropriate- ness in Citizens’ Assessments of Individual Judicial Decisions.” Justice System Journal35: 239–268.
16.
BrennerSaul. 1982. “Fluidity on the Supreme Court: 1956-1967.” American Journal of Political Science26 (2): 388–390.
17.
BryanAmanda CKromphardtChristopher D. 2016. “Public Opinion, Public Support, and Counter-Attitudinal Voting on the US Supreme Court.” Justice System Journal37 (4): 298–317.
18.
BudziakJeffreyHittMatthew PLempertDaniel, et al.2019. “Determinants of Writing Style on the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals.” Journal of Law and Courts7 (1): 1–28.
19.
CaldeiraGregory A.1986. “Neither the Purse nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confi- dence in the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review80: 1209–1226.
20.
CaldeiraGregory A.GibsonJames L.. 1992. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science36: 635–664.
21.
ChristensonDino P.GlickDavid M.. 2015. “Chief Justice Roberts’ Health Care De- cision Disrobed: The Mircofoundations of the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science59 (2): 403–418.
22.
ClarkTom SJeffreyR LaxDouglasRice, et al.2015. “Measuring the political salience of Supreme Court cases.” Journal of Law and Courts3 (1): 37–65.
23.
ClintonJoshua D.EnamoradoTed. 2014. “The National News Media’s Effect on Congress: How Fox News Affected Elites in Congress.” Journal of Politics76 (4): 928–943.
24.
CollinsPaul M.2004. “Friends of the court: Examining the influence of amicus curiae participation in US Supreme Court litigation.” Law & Society Review38 (4): 807–832.
25.
CollinsTodd ACooperChristopher A. 2015. “Making the cases “real”: Newspaper coverage of US Supreme Court cases 1953–2004.” Political Communication32 (1): 23–42.
26.
CorleyPamela CJustinWedeking. 2014. “The (Dis) advantage of certainty: The importance of certainty in language.” Law & Society Review48 (11): 35–62.
27.
DenisonAlexanderJustinWedekingZilisMichael A, et al.2020. “Negative media cover- age of the supreme court: The interactive role of opinion language, coalition size, and ideological signals.” Social Science Quarterly101 (1): 121–143.
28.
EastonDavid. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.
EpsteinLeeKnightJack. 2013. “Reconsidering judicial preferences.” Annual Review of Political Science16: 11–31.
31.
EpsteinLeeSegalJeffrey A.. 2000. “Measuring issue salience.” American Journal of Political Science44: 66–83.
32.
EpsteinLeeLandesWilliam MPosnerRichard A. 2014. “The Best for Last: The Timing of US Supreme Court Decisions.” Duke LJ64: 991.
33.
FriedmanBarry. 2006. “Taking Law Seriously.” Perspectives on Politics4: 1–16.
34.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.. 2009. Citizens, Courts, and Confirmation: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester K., et al.2005. “Why Do People Accept Public Policies They Oppose? Testing Legitimacy Theory with a Survey-Based Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly58 (2): 187–201.
36.
GibsonJames L.NelsonMichael J. 2014. “The Legitimacy of the US Supreme Court: Conventional Wisdoms and Recent Challenges Thereto.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science10: 201–219.
37.
GibsonJames L.LodgeMiltonWoodsonBenjamin, et al.2014. “Losing, but Accepting: Legitimacy, Positivity Theory, and the Symbols of Judicial Authority.” Law & Social Review48 (4): 837–866.
38.
GlennonColinStrotherLogan. 2019. “The Maintenance of Institutional Legitimacy in Supreme Court Justices’ Public Rhetoric.” Journal of Law and Courts7 (2): 241–261.
39.
GoelzhauserGregKassowBenjaminDouglasRice. 2021. “Measuring Supreme Court Case Complexity.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. 38: 92–118.
40.
GrossmannMattSwedlowBrendon. 2015. “Judicial Contributions to US National Policy Change since 1945.” Journal of Law and Courts3 (1): 1–35.
41.
HansfordG ThomasCoeChelsea. 2019. “Linguistic complexity, information process-ing, and public acceptance of supreme court decisions.” Political Psychology40 (2): 395–412.
42.
HermesJeffreyWihbeyJohnJuncoReynolTolga AricakOsman. 2014. Who Gets a Press Pass?” Media credentialing practices in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Berkman Center.
43.
HettingerVirginia ALindquistStefanie AMartinekWendy L, et al.2003. “Separate opinion writing on the United States courts of appeals.” American Politics Research31 (3): 215–250.
44.
HittMatthew PSearlesKathleen. 2018. “Media Coverage and Public Approval of the US Supreme Court.” Political Communication35: 566–586.
45.
HoekstraValerie J. 2003. Public Reaction to Supreme Court Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.
46.
HoekstraValerieJohnsonTimothy. 2003. “Delaying justice: The Supreme Court’s decision to hear rearguments.” Political Research Quarterly56 (3): 351–360.
JacobsSandraSchillemansThomas. 2016. “Media and public accountability: typology and exploration.” Policy & Politics44 (1): 23–40.
49.
JanisIrving L. 1972. Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Washington, DC: APA Psycnet
50.
JohnsonTimothy RWahlbeckPaul JJamesSpriggsF, et al.2006. “The influence of oral arguments on the US Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review100 (1): 99–113.
51.
KeckThomas M. 2006. “Party, Policy, or Duty: Why Does the Supreme Court Invalidate Federal Statutes?” American Political Science Review101 (2): 321–338.
52.
KingGaryZengLangche. 2001. “Logistic regression in rare events data.” Political Analysis9 (2): 137–163.
53.
KrewsonChristopher N.2019a. “Save this honorable Court: Shaping public perceptions of the Supreme Court off the bench.” Political Research Quarterly72 (3): 686–699.
54.
KrewsonChristopher N.2019b. “Strategic Sensationalism: Why Justices Use Emotional Appeals in Supreme Court Opinions.” Justice System Journal40 (4): 319–336.
55.
LaxJeffrey RKellyRader. 2015. “Bargaining power in the Supreme Court: Evidence from opinion assignment and vote switching.” The Journal of Politics77 (3): 648–663.
56.
LongJ. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications
57.
MaltzmanForrestWahlbeckPaul J. 1996. “Inside the US Supreme Court: The Reliability of the Justices’ Conference Records.” The Journal of Politics58 (2): 528–539.
58.
MartinAndrew DKevinM Quinn.. 2002. “Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the US Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis10 (22): 134–153.
59.
MutzDiana C. 2006. Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
60.
NelsonThomas EClawsonRosalee A.OxleyZoe M., et al.1997. “Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance.” The American Political Science Review91 (3): 567–583.
61.
NorrisPippa. 2014. “Watchdog Journalism.” In The Oxford handbook of public accountability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School.
62.
RingsmuthEve M. 2015. “Voting Fluidity throughout the Decision-Making Process on the US Supreme Court.” Justice System Journal36 (3): 197–211.
63.
RingsmuthEve MBryanAmanda CJohnsonTimothy R, et al.2013. “Voting fluidity and oral argument on the US Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly66 (2): 429–440.
64.
RosenbaumPaul R. 1984. “The consequences of adjustment for a concomitant variable that has been affected by the treatment.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General)147 (5): 656–666.
65.
RosenbergGerald N.2005. “Courting Disaster: Looking for Change in All the Wrong Places.” Drake L Rev54: 795.
66.
SchmidtChristopher W.2013. “Beyond the opinion: Supreme Court justices and extra- judicial speech.” Chicago-Kent Law Review88 (2): 487–528.
67.
SchneiderhanErikKhanShamus. 2008. “Reasons and inclusion: The foundation of deliberation.” Sociological Theory26 (1): 1–24.
68.
SegalJeffrey A.SpaethHarold J.. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
StasserGaroldBirchmeierZachary. 2003. “Group creativity and collective choice.” In: Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 85–109.
71.
StrotherLogan. 2017. “How Expected Political and Legal Impact Drive Media Coverage of Supreme Court Cases.” Political Communication34 (4): 571–589.
72.
TausczikYla RPennebakerJames W. 2010. “The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods.” Journal of Language and Social Psy- Chology29 (1): 24–54.
73.
TylerTom R.2006. “Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation.” Annual Review of Psychology57: 375–400.
74.
WahlbeckPaul JSpriggsJames FMaltzmanForrest, et al.1998. “Marshalling the Court: Bargaining and Accommodation on the United States Supreme Court.” American Jour- Nal of Political Science42: 294–315.
75.
WedekingJustinZilisMichael A. 2018. “Disagreeable Rhetoric and the Prospect of Public Opposition: Opinion Moderation on the US Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly71 (2): 380–394.
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.
