Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Men and women diverge in their political behavior and attitudes. We test whether gender-based variation in political attitudes extends to perceptions of US Supreme Court legitimacy. Using a dataset covering the years 2012–2017, we show that one’s identification as a man or a woman predicts their diffuse support for the Court. In particular, women almost always extend less legitimacy to the Court than men do. This is true within both Republican and Democratic identifiers, and regression analysis shows the gender gap holds when controlling for partisanship, ideology, race, age, education, income, and Supreme Court approval. Additionally, we included a series of questions in a 2021 Cooperative Election Study (CES) module to explore why the gender gap in perceived legitimacy exists. We find that differences in perceptions of the Court’s representation of women and its fairness drive the gender gap in legitimacy.

Keywords

supreme court legitimacy gender public opinion

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Badas

(2019). The applied legitimacy index: A new approach to measuring judicial legitimacy. Social Science Quarterly, 100(5), 1848–1861. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12660

Badas

Stauffer

K. E.

(2018). Someone like me: Descriptive representation and support for supreme court nominees. Political Research Quarterly. 71(1), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917724006

Baird

V. A.

Gangl

(2006). Shattering the myth of legality: The impact of the media’s framing of Supreme court procedures on perceptions of fairness. Political Psychology. 27(4), 597–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00518.x

Bartels

B. L.

Johnston

C. D.

(2013). On the ideological foundations of supreme court legitimacy in the American public. American Journal of Political Science. 57(1), 184–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00616.x

Bartels

B. L.

Johnston

C. D.

(2020). Curbing the court: Why the public constrains judicial independence. Cambridge University Press.

Bartels

B. L.

Kramon

(2021). All the president’s justices? The impact of presidential copartisanship on supreme court job approval. American Journal of Political Science. 66(1), 171–186, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12617

Box-Steffensmeier

J. M.

De Boef

Lin

T. M.

(2004). The dynamics of the partisan gender gap. American Political Science Review. 98(3), 515–528, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055404001315

Boyd

C. L.

Epstein

Martin

A. D.

(2010). Untangling the causal effects of sex on judging. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 389–411, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00437.x

Caldeira

G. A.

Gibson

J. L.

(1992). The etiology of public support for the supreme court. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 635–664, https://doi.org/10.2307/2111585

10.

Carp

R. A.

Manning

K. L.

Holmes

L. M.

(2022). Judicial process in America. CQ Press.

11.

Chen

Bryan

(2021). The legal double standard: Gender, personality information, and the evaluation of Supreme court nominees. Justice System Journal, 42(3–4), 325–340, https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2021.1967231

12.

Clark

T. S.

(2009). The separation of powers, court curbing, and judicial legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 971–989.

13.

Clark

T. S.

Kastellec

J. P.

(2015). Source cues and public support for the supreme court. American Politics Research, 43(3), 504–535, https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x14560809

14.

Clayton

O'Brien

D. Z.

Piscopo

J. M.

(2019). All male panels? Repre- sentation and democratic legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science, 63(1), 113–129, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12391

15.

Dahl

R. A.

(1957). Decision-making in a democracy: The Supreme court as a national policy-maker. Journal of Public Law, 6(2), 279.

16.

Eagly

A. H.

Diekman

A. B.

Johannesen-Schmidt

M. C.

Koenig

A. M.

(2004). Gender gaps in sociopolitical attitudes: A social psychological analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 796–816, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.796

17.

Epstein

Knight

(1997). The choices justices make. Sage.

18.

Farganis

(2012). Do reasons matter? The impact of opinion content on supreme court legitimacy. Political Research Quarterly, 65(1), 206–216, https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912911430667

19.

Gibson

J. L.

Caldeira

G. A.

(1992). Blacks and the United States supreme court: Models of diffuse support. The Journal of Politics, 54(4), 1120–1145, https://doi.org/10.2307/2132111

20.

Gibson

J. L.

Caldeira

G. A.

Spence

L. K.

(2003). Measuring attitudes toward the United States Supreme court. American Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 354–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00025.

21.

Gibson

J. L.

Lodge

Woodson

(2014). Losing, but accepting: Legitimacy, positivity theory, and the symbols of judicial authority. Law and Society Review, 48(4), 837–866, https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12104

22.

Gibson

J. L.

Nelson

M. J.

(2014). The legitimacy of the US Supreme court: Conventional wisdoms and recent challenges thereto. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 10(1), 201–219, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030546

23.

Gibson

J. L.

Nelson

M. J.

(2015). Is the US Supreme court’s legitimacy grounded in performance satisfaction and ideology? American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 162–174, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12107

24.

Gibson

J. L.

Nelson

M. J.

(2017). Reconsidering positivity theory: What roles do politicization, ideological disagreement, and legal realism play in shaping US Supreme court legitimacy? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 14(3), 592–617, https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12157

25.

Gibson

J. L.

Nelson

M. J.

(2018). Black and blue: How and why African Americans judge the American legal system. Oxford University Press.

26.

Hall

M. E. K.

(2010). The nature of supreme court power. Cambridge University Press.

27.

Hayes

Hibbing

M. V.

(2017). The symbolic benefits of descriptive and substantive representation. Political Behavior, 39(1), 31–50, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9345-9

28.

Hollander-Blumoff

Tyler

T. R.

(2008). Procedural justice in negotiation: Procedural fairness, outcome acceptance, and integrative potential. Law and Social Inquiry, 33(2), 473–500, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2008.00110.x

29.

Huddy

Cassese

Lizotte

M.-K.

(2008). Gender, public opinion, and political reasoning. In Political women and American democracy (pp. 31–49). Cambridge University Press.

30.

Iyengar

Lelkes

Levendusky

Malhotra

Westwood

S. J.

(2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129–146, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034

31.

Kastellec

J. P.

(2013). Racial diversity and judicial influence on appellate courts. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 167–183.

32.

Klein

(1984). Gender politics. Harvard University Press.

33.

Krewson

C. N.

Owens

R. J.

(2022). Judicial philosophy and the public’s support for courts. Political Research Quarterly, 71(1), 127–142, https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129221119741

34.

Lizotte

M- K.

(2020). Gender differences in public opinion: Values and political Con- sequences. Temple University Press.

35.

Mansbridge

(1999). Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? ‘yes’, The Journal of Politics 61(3), 628–657, https://doi.org/10.2307/2647821

36.

Manza

Brooks

(1998). The gender gap in US presidential elections: When? Why? Implications? American Journal of Sociology 103(5), 1235–1266. https://doi.org/10.1086/231352

37.

Nelson

(2015). Double-bind on the bench: Citizen perceptions of judge gender and the court. Politics and Gender 11(02), 235–264, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x15000021

38.

Nicholson

S. P.

Hansford

T. G.

(2014). Partisans in robes: Party cues and public acceptance of supreme court decisions. American Journal of Political Science 58(3), 620–636, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12091

39.

Ono

Zilis

M. A.

(2022). Ascriptive characteristics and perceptions of impropriety in the rule of law: Race, gender, and public assessments of whether judges can Be impartial. American Journal of Political Science 66(1), 43–58, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12599

40.

Sapiro

(2003). Theorizing gender in political psychology research. Oxford University Press

41.

Scherer

Curry

(2010). Does descriptive race representation enhance institutional legitimacy? The case of the US courts. The Journal of Politics 72(1), 90–104, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381609990491

42.

Schneider

M. C.

Holman

M. R.

Diekman

A. B.

McAndrew

(2016). Power, conflict, and community: How gendered views of political power influence women’s political ambition. Political Psychology 37(4), 515–531, https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12268

43.

Schwindt-Bayer

L. A.

Mishler

(2005). An integrated model of women’s representation. The Journal of Politics 67(2), 407–428, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00323.x

44.

Stauffer

K. E.

(2016). Public perceptions of women’s inclusion and feelings of political efficacy. American Political Science Review 115(4), 1226–1241, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055421000678

45.

Tyler

T. R.

(2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology. 57(1), 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038

46.

Tyler

T. R.

(2021). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.

47.

Ulbig

S. G.

Funk

C. L.

(1999). Conflict avoidance and political participation. Political Behavior. 21(3), 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022087617514

48.

Ura

J. D.

Wohlfarth

P. C.

(2010). An appeal to the people: Public opinion and congressional support for the Supreme court. The Journal of Politics, 72(4), 939–956. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381610000459.

49.

Winter

N. J. G.

(2010). Masculine Republicans and feminine Democrats: Gender and Americans’ explicit and implicit images of the political parties. Political Behavior. 32(4), 587–618, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9131-z

50.

Wolak

(2020). Conflict avoidance and gender gaps in political engagement. Political Behavior. 44(1), 133–156, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09614-5

51.

Zilis

M. A.

(2018). Minority groups and judicial legitimacy: Group affect and the incentives for judicial responsiveness. Political Research Quarterly. 71(2), 270–283, https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917735174

52.

Zilis

M. A.

(2020). How identity politics polarizes rule of law opinions. Political Behavior. 44(1), 179–199, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09616-3

53.

Zilis

M. A.

(2021). The rights paradox: How group attitudes shape US supreme court legitimacy. Cambridge University Press.

54.

Zink

J. R.

Spriggs

J. F.

Scott

J. T.

(2009). Courting the public: The influence of decision attributes on individuals’ views of court opinions. The Journal of Politics. 71(3), 909–925, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381609090793

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.

0.00 MB

0.67 MB