Element contents
Series: Elements in American Politics
Supremely Polarizing
How Partisanship Structures Support for the Supreme Court
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 April 2026
Summary
Although the Supreme Court has historically resisted a partisan sorting out of its public legitimacy, today, Republicans and Democrats look at the Court in very different ways. This Element assembles original survey and experimental data to unpack these changes in three ways. First, the authors illustrate the powerful role that partisanship plays in shaping judicial public opinion. Second, they validate a new three-item measure of specific support and show that it reliably predicts perceptions of Supreme Court legitimacy. Finally, they introduce a new, applied measure of support for the rule of law and connect it to specific and diffuse support. Taken as a whole, their work demonstrates that large chunks of the mass public view the Supreme Court critically. Looking ahead, it is unclear whether legitimacy will rebound when citizens perceive that the balance of judicial power within the nation's High Court has fractured along party lines.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in American PoliticsOnline ISBN: 9781009613491Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 30 April 2026
References
References
Adelman, Lynn. 2019. “The Roberts Court’s assault on democracy.” Harvard Law and Policy Review, 14: 131–158.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., Montgomery, Jacob M., and Sparks, David B.. 2014. “Polarization and ideology: Partisan sources of low dimensionality in scaled roll call analyses.” Political Analysis, 22(4): 435–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Mark S., Iliescu, Dragos, and Greiff, Samuel. 2022. “Single item measures in psychological science.” European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 38(1): 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Ass’n of Univ. Professors v. Rubio, Civ. No. 25–10685–WGY (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2025) (Young, J.), Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law.Google Scholar
Armaly, Miles T., and Enders, Adam M.. 2022. “Affective polarization and support for the US Supreme court.” Political Research Quarterly, 75(2): 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Mary Layton, Coggins, K. Elizabeth, Stimson, James A., and Baumgartner, Frank R..2021. The Dynamics of Public Opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badas, Alex, and Schmidt, Eric R.. 2024. “Social imagery and judicial legitimacy: Evidence from evangelical Christians.” Political Research Quarterly, 77(1): 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badas, Alex. 2019. “The applied legitimacy index: A new approach to measuring judicial legitimacy.” Social Science Quarterly, 100(5): 1848–1861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, Vanessa A., and Gangl, Amy. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Bert N., and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2018. “Selling ourselves short? How abbreviated measures of personality change the way we think about personality and politics.” The Journal of Politics, 80(4): 1311–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L., and Johnston, Christopher D.. 2013. “On the ideological foundations of Supreme Court legitimacy in the American public.” American Journal of Political Science, 57(1): 184–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L., and Johnston, Christopher D.. 2020. Curbing the Court: Why the Public Constrains Judicial Independence. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L., and Kramon, Eric. 2025. “Can the Supreme Court generate public acceptance of election rulings? Politicized appointments, elite norm violations, and the 2020 election.” Journal of Law and Court, 13(2): 1–22.Google Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L., Johnston, Christopher D., and Mark, Alyx. 2015. “Lawyers’ perceptions of the US Supreme Court: Is the court a “political” institution?” Law & Society Review, 49(3): 761–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence, and Devins, Neal. 2019. The Company They Keep: How Partisan Divisions Came to the Supreme Court. Oxford, UK.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J. 2017. “Measuring public opinion with surveys.” Annual Review of Political Science, 20(1): 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Alexander. 1962. The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Blake, Emerson. 2022. “Liberty and democracy through the administrative state: A critique of the Roberts Court’s political theory.” Hastings Law Journal, 73: 371–436.Google Scholar
Bonica, Adam, and Sen, Maya. 2021. “Estimating judicial ideology.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 35(1): 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, Laura. 2025. “Can the President Dismantle the Department of Education by Executive Order?” Just Security. Retrieved from: www.justsecurity.org/107918/dismantle-department-education-executive-order/Google Scholar
Boston, Joshua, and Krewson, Christopher N.. 2024. “Public approval of the Supreme Court and its implications for legitimacy.” Political Research Quarterly, 77(3): 835–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boston, Joshua, Carlson, David, Duck-Mayr, JBrandon, and Sasso, Greg. 2024. “Political competition and judicial independence: How courts fill the void when legislatures are ineffective.” Journal of Law and Courts, 12(1): 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan Center. 2017. “In his own words: The President’s attacks on the Courts.” Retrieved from: www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/his-own-words-presidents-attacks-courtsGoogle Scholar
Brown, Rebecca L. and Epstein, Lee. 2023. “Is the US Supreme Court a reliable backstop for an overreaching US president? Maybe, but is an overreaching (Partisan) court worse?” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 53(2): 234–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, Elena and Rivers, Marc. 2025. “Are we in a constitutional crisis?” NPR: Consider this. Retrieved from: www.npr.org/2025/02/11/1230674436/are-we-in-a-constitutional-crisisGoogle Scholar
Cagle, Drew, and Davis, Nicholas T.. 2024. “Civility norm violations and political accountability.” Social Science Quarterly, 105(3): 832–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Gibson, James L.. 1992. “The etiology of public support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science, 36(3): 635–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Charles M. and Kastellec, Jonathan P.. 2023. Making the Supreme Court: The Politics of Appointments, 1930–2020. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Charles M., and Kastellec, Jonathan P.. 2024. “The Supreme Court: How did we get here? And what comes next?” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 713(1): 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrington, Nathan T., and French, Colin. 2021. “One bad apple spoils the bunch: Kavanaugh and Change in institutional support for the Supreme Court.” Social Science Quarterly, 102(4): 1484–1495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey, Gregory. 1974. “The Supreme Court and myth: An empirical investigation.” Law & Society Review, 8(3): 385–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassens Weiss, Debra. 2025. “Executive orders against firms threaten rule of law, Susman Godfrey says in suit against Trump administration” ABA Journal. Retrieved from: abajournal.com/news/article/executive-orders-against-law-firms-threaten-rule-of-law-susman-godfrey-says-in-suit-against-trump-administraiton.Google Scholar
Chafetz, Josh. 2017. Congress’s Constitution: Legislative authority and the separation.Google Scholar
Christenson, Dino P., and Glick, David M.. 2015. “Chief Justice Roberts’s health care decision disrobed: The microfoundations of the Supreme Court’s legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science, 59(2): 403–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Chelsey S., Paluck, Elizabeth Levy, Westwood, Sean J., Sen, Maya, Malhotra, Neil, and Jessee, Stephen. 2024. “Effects of a US Supreme Court ruling to restrict abortion rights.” Nature Human Behaviour, 8(1): 63–71.Google ScholarPubMed
Clark, Tom S., and Kastellec, Jonathan P.. 2015. “Source cues and public support for the Supreme Court.” American Politics Research, 43(3): 504–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, Katherine, Davis, Nicholas T., Nyhan, Brendan, Porter, Ethan, Ryan, Timothy J., and Wood, Thomas J.. 2021. “Elite rhetoric can undermine democratic norms.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(23): e2024125118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The nature of belief systems in mass publics.” In Apter, David E. (ed.), Ideology and Its Discontents. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
CREW. 2025. “FBI agents may not open retaliatory investigations into FBI employees who worked on January 6th or classified documents cases.” Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Retrieved from: www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/fbi-agents-may-not-open-retaliatory-investigations-into-fbi-employees-who-worked-on-january-6th-or-classified-documents-cases/Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1957. “Decision-making in a democracy: The Supreme Court as a national policy-maker.” Journal of Publication Law, 6: 279.Google Scholar
Davies, Davie. 2025. “Harvard professor offers a rim assessment of American democracy under Trump.” NPR. Retrieved from: www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5372334/harvard-professor-offers-a-grim-assessment-of-american-democracy-under-trumpGoogle Scholar
Davis, Nicholas T. 2019. “Identity sorting and political compromise.” American Politics Research, 47(2): 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Nicholas T. and Hitt, Matthew P.. 2025. “Partisan sorting, fatalism, and supreme court legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12972Google Scholar
Davis, Nicholas T., Gaddie, Keith, and Goidel, Kirby. 2022. Democracy’s Meanings: How the Public Understands Democracy and Why It Matters. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Taraleigh. 2025. “In the light: Procedural legitimacy, the shadow docket, and support for the US Supreme Court.” American Politics Research, 53(2): 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deschler, John, and Sen, Maya. 2024. “The role of judge ideology in strategic retirements in U.S. federal courts.” Journal of Law and Empirical Analysis, 1(1): 98–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devins, Neal, and Baum, Lawrence. 2017. “Split definitive: How party polarization turned the Supreme Court into a partisan court.” The Supreme Court Review, 2016(1): 301–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaz, Dario, Blanco, Amalio, Bajo, Miriam, and Stavraki, Maria. 2015. “Fatalism and well-being across Hispanic cultures: The social fatalism scales (SFS).” Social Indicators Research, 124: 929–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dichio, Michael A., and Logvinenko, Igor. 2024. “‘Culture and practice eat documents for lunch:’ Norms and procedures in the 2020 election cases.” Law & Policy, 46(3): 298–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, David. 1975. “A re-assessment of the concept of political support.” British Journal of Political Science, 5(4): 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Economic Policy Institute. 2025. “Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) illegally accesses federal government systems.” Retrieved from: www.epi.org/policywatch/department-of-government-efficiency-doge-illegally-accesses-federal-government-systems/Google Scholar
Enns, Peter K. and Wohlfarth, Patrick C.. 2013. “The swing justice.” Journal of Politics, 75(4): 1089–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Posner, Eric A.. 2022. “The Roberts Court and the transformation of constitutional protections for religion: A statistical portrait.” The Supreme Court Review, 2021(1): 315–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee. 2024. “Partisanship” All the Way Down” on the US Supreme Court.” Pepperdine Law Review, 51: 489–514.Google Scholar
FBIAA. 2025. “FBI Agents Association Files Temporary Restraining Order to Block Trump Administration from Releasing Names of Special Agents Targeted for Work on January 6 Investigations.” Retrieved from: www.fbiaa.org/fbi-agents-association-files-temporary-restraining-order-to-block-trump-administration-from-releasing-names-of-special-agents-targeted-for-work-on-january-6-investigations/Google Scholar
Federico, Christopher M., Feldman, Stanely, and Weber, Christopher. 2026. The Authoritarian Divide: Partisan Identity, Voting, and the Transformation of the American Electorate. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, S., Mérola, V., and Dollman, J.. 2021. The psychology of authoritarianism and support for illiberal policies and parties. In Sajó, András, Uitz, Renáta, and Holmes, Stephen (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Illiberalism (pp. 635–654). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fishkin, Joseph, and Pozen, David E.. 2018. “Asymmetric constitutional hardball.” Columbia Law Review, 118(3): 915–982.Google Scholar
Fishman, Nic, and Davis, Nicholas T.. 2022. “Change we can believe in: Structural and content dynamics within belief networks.” American Journal of Political Science, 66(3): 648–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florez, Karen R., Aguirre, Alejandra N., Viladrich, Anahi, Céspedes, Amarillis, Cruz, Ana Alicia De La, and Abraido-Lanza, Ana F.. 2009. “Fatalism or destiny: A qualitative study and interpretive framework on Dominican women’s breast cancer beliefs.” Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 11: 291–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, James L. 2007a. “The legitimacy of the US Supreme Court in a polarized polity.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(3): 507–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. 2007b. “Changes in American Veneration for the Rule of Law.” DePaul Law Review, 56: 593–614.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., Pereira, Miguel M., and Ziegler, Jeffrey. 2017. “Updating Supreme Court legitimacy: Testing the “rule, learn, update” model of political communication.” American Politics Research, 45(6): 980–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L, Caldeira, Gregory A. and Spence, Lester Kenyatta. 2003. “The Supreme Court and the U.S. presidential election of 2000: Wounds, self-inflicted or otherwise?” British Journal of Political Science, 33(4): 535–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. 2024. “Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory.” American Journal of Political Science, 68(3): 1041–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. 2025a. Do the effects of unpopular Supreme Court rulings last? The Dobbs decision rescinding abortion rights. American Political Science Review, 119(1): 500–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. 2025b. “The US Supreme Court’s legitimacy: How public opinion updates.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 713(1): 260–277.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. 2007 “The legitimacy of the US Supreme Court in a polarized polity.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(3): 507–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. and Nelson, Michael J.. 2014. “The legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court: Conventional wisdoms and recent challenges thereto.” Annual Review of Political Science, 10: 201–219.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Caldeira, Gregory A.. 2009. “Knowing the Supreme Court? A reconsideration of public ignorance of the high court.” The Journal of Politics, 71(2): 429–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Caldeira, Gregory A.. 2011. “Has legal realism damaged the legitimacy of the US Supreme Court?” Law and Society Review, 45(1): 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Nelson, Michael J.. 2015. “Is the US Supreme Court’s legitimacy grounded in performance satisfaction and ideology?” American Journal of Political Science, 59(1): 162–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Nelson, Michael J.. 2016. “Change in institutional support for the US Supreme Court: Is the court’s legitimacy imperiled by the decisions it makes?” Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(3): 622–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Nelson, Michael 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A. and Baird, Vanessa A.. 1998. “On the legitimacy of national High Courts.” American Political Science Review, 92(2): 343–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gore, Al. December 13, 2000. “2000 Presidential Concession Speech.” Retrieved from: www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/algore2000concessionspeech.html.Google Scholar
Gorsuch, Neil M. 2017. Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of Hon. Neil M. Gorsuch to Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 115th Cong., 1st sess., March 21, 2017. U.S. Government Publishing Office.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, Stephen E. 2018 Unfit for Democracy: The Roberts Court and the Breakdown of American Politics. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, Matthew H., and Svolik, Milan W.. 2020. “Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States.” American Political Science Review, 114(2): 392–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Craig. 2009. “An intellectual history of judicial activism.” Emory Law Journal, 58: 1195–1264.Google Scholar
Grosskopf, Anka, and Mondak, Jeffrey 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 Quarterly, 51(3): 633–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Matt and Hopkins, David A.. 2016 Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haglin, Kathryn, Jordan, Soren, Merrill, Alison Higgins, and Ura, Joseph Daniel. 2025. “Reevaluating ideological asymmetries in specific support for the Supreme Court.” Research & politics, 12(3), 20531680251355253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, Alexander. 1787. “Federalist No. 23.” In Rossiter, Clinton (ed.), The Federalist Papers, 147–152. New York: Mentor, 1961.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Alexander. 1788. “Federalist No. 78.” Retrieved from: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0241.Google Scholar
Hitt, Matthew P. 2013. “Presidential success in Supreme Court appointments: Informational effects and institutional constraints.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 43(4): 792–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitt, Matthew P. 2019. Inconsistency and Indecision in the United States Supreme Court. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitt, Matthew P., and Searles, Kathleen. 2018. “Media coverage and public approval of the US Supreme Court.” Political Communication, 35(4): 566–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitt, Matthew P., Saunders, Kyle L., and Scott, Kevin M.. 2019. “Justice speaks, but who’s listening? Mass public awareness of U.S. Supreme Court Cases.” Journal of Law and Courts, 7(1): 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, Wythe. 1989. “To establish justice: Politics, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the invention of the federal courts.” Duke Law Journal, 1989(6): 1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwitz, Morton J. 2025. The Warren Court and the Democratic Constitution. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Hosie, Duncan. 2025. “Stealth reversals: Precedent evasion in the Roberts Court and constitutional reclamation.” UC Davis Law Review, 58(3): 1323–1427.Google Scholar
Howe, Amy. 2025. “Supreme Court allows Trump administration to withhold billions in foreign-aid funding.” SCOTUSblog. Retrieved from: www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-withhold-billions-in-foreign-aid-funding/Google Scholar
Hünermund, Pual, and Louw, Beyers. 2023. “On the Nuisance of Control Variables in Causal Regression Analysis.” In press, Organizational Research Methods.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, Lawrence and Doyle, Katherine. 2025. “Trump is on a winnings streak at the Supreme Court.” NBC News. Retrieved from: www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trumps-supreme-court-winning-streak-politics-desk-rcna233055.Google Scholar
Hurley, Lawrence. 2025. “In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court’s handling of Trump cases.” NBC News. Retrieved from: www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-trump-cases-federal-judges-criticize-rcna221775.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2015. “Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization.” American Journal of Political Science, 59(3): 690–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, Stephen, Malhotra, Neil, and Sen, Maya. 2022. “A decade-long longitudinal survey shows that the Supreme Court is now much more conservative than the public.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(24): e2120284119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, David A. 2019. The Most Dangerous Branch: Inside the Supreme Court in the Age of Trump. New York, NY: Crown.Google Scholar
Karol, David. 2009. Party Position Change in American politics: Coalition Management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, Thomas M. 2024. “The US Supreme Court and democratic backsliding.” Law & Policy, 46(2): 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Seung Min, Everett, Burgess, and Schoor, Elana. 2017. “Senate GOP goes ‘nuclear’ on Supreme Court filibuster.” Politico. Retrieved from: www.politico.com/story/2017/04/senate-neil-gorsuch-nuclear-option-236937Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Kalmoe, Nathan P.. 2017. Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klain, Hannah, Morris, Kevin, and Ayala, Rebecca. 2020. “Waiting to Vote.” Brennan Center. Retrieved from: www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/waiting-voteGoogle Scholar
Krygier, Martin. 1990. “Marxism and the Rule of Law: Reflections after the collapse of communism.” Law & Social Inquiry, 15(4): 633–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leuchtenburg, William E. 2005. “When Franklin Roosevelt Clashed with the Supreme Court – and Lost.” Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from: www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-franklin-roosevelt-clashed-with-the-supreme-court-and-lost-78497994/.Google Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew, Patterson, Shawn Jr., Margolis, Michele, Pasek, Josh, Winneg, Kenneth, and Jamieson, Kathleen H.. 2024. “Has the Supreme Court become just another political branch? Public perceptions of court approval and legitimacy in a post-Dobbs world.” Science Advances, 10(10): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magalhães, Pedro C. 2014. “Government effectiveness and support for democracy.” European Journal of Political Research, 53(1): 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maravall, José María, and Przeworski, Adam. 2003. Democracy and the Rule of Law. Vol. 5. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, Ruth. 2025. “J. D. Vance warns Courts to get in line.” The New Yorker. Retrieved from: www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/j-d-vance-warns-courts-to-get-in-line.Google Scholar
Margolis, Michele F. 2018. From Politics to the Pews: How Partisanship and the Political Environment Shape Religious Identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marková, Ivana, Moodie, Eleanor, Farr, Robert M., Drozda‐Senkowska, Ewa, Erös, Ferenc, Plichtová, Jana, Gervais, Marie‐Claude, Hoffmannová, Jana, and Mullerová, Olga. 1998. “Social representations of the individual: A post‐Communist perspective.” European Journal of Social SPsychology 28(5): 797–829.Google Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Nolan. 2007. “The policy effects of political polarization.” In Pierson, Paul and Skocpol, Theda (eds.) The Transformation of American Politics: Activist Government and the Rise of Conservatism, pp. 223–255. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Millhiser, Ian. 2021. The Agenda: How a Republican Supreme Court is Reshaping America. Columbia Global Reports.Google Scholar
Millhiser, Ian. 2024. “We should call the Republican justices “Republicans” and not “conservatives.” Vox. Retrieved from: www.vox.com/scotus/371361/supreme-court-call-republican-justices-republicans.Google Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J., and Smithey, Shannon Ishiyama. 1997. “The dynamics of public support for the Supreme Court.” The Journal of Politics, 59(4): 1114–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, Kevin T. and Miller, Michael G.. 2025. “Did Shelby County v. Holder Increase the Racial Turnout Gap?” The Journal of Politics. www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/739960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, Kevin T. and Miller, Michael G.. Forthcoming. An American Problem: How the Country Built – and the Supreme Court Broke – The Voting Rights Act. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
NAACP Legal Defense Fund. 2025. “How Shelby County v. Holder Broke Democracy. Interactive website. Retrieved from: www.naacpldf.org/shelby-county-v-holder-impact/Google Scholar
Neblo, Michael A., and Wallace, Jeremy L.. 2021. “A plague on politics? The COVID crisis, expertise, and the future of legitimation.” American Political Science Review, 115(4): 1524–1529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, James Alan and Hoppe, Sue Keir. 1993. “Race/ethnicity, acculturation, and psychological distress: Fatalism and religiosity as cultural resources.” Journal of Community Psychology, 21(1): 3–20.3.0.CO;2-9>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Michael J., and Gibson, James L.. 2017. “US Supreme Court legitimacy: Unanswered questions and an agenda for future research.” In Epstein, Lee and Landes, William M. (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Judicial Behavior, pp. 132–150. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nelson, Michael J., and Gibson, James L.. 2020. “Measuring subjective ideological disagreement with the US Supreme Court.” Journal of Law and Courts, 8(1): 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Michael J., and Tucker, Patrick D.. 2021. “The stability and durability of the U.S. Supreme Court’s legitimacy.” The Journal of Politics, 83(2): 767–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2012. “Polarizing cues.” American Journal of Political Science, 56(1): 52–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicholson, Stephen P., and Hansford, Thomas G.. 2014. “Partisans in robes: Party cues and public acceptance of Supreme Court decisions.” American Journal of Political Science, 58(3): 620–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noel, Hans. 2013. Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Novkov, Julie. 2024. “From the rotting soil grows the poison ivy: The Supreme Court and the legitimation of Herrenvolk democracy.” Law & Policy, 46(3): 222–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NYC Bar Association. 2025. “Congress and the Courts Should Insist on Compliance with Federal Law.” New York City Bar. Retrieved from: www.nycbar.org/press-releases/firings-of-inspectors-general-are-illegal-and-invalid/.Google Scholar
Orr, Lilla V., and Huber, Gregory A.. 2020. “The policy basis of measured partisan animosity in the United States.” American Journal of Political Science, 64(3): 569–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passini, Stefano, and Morselli, Davide. 2010. “Disobeying an illegitimate request in a democratic or authoritarian system.” Political Psychology, 31(3): 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellish, Aaron. 2025. “‘Deplorable’: Democrats slam SCOTUS ruling in birthright citizenship case.” Politico. Retrieved from: www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/06/27/supreme-court-rulings-decisions-today-news-analysis/birthright-citizenship-democrats-condemn-00427992.Google Scholar
Peretti, Terri. 2024. “Has the Roberts Court helped Donald Trump and the GOP Rig elections and erode American Democracy?” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 713(1): 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, David A., Miller, Joanne M., Saunders, Kyle L., and McClurg, Scott D.. 2022. “Macrointerest.” British Journal of Political Science, 52(1): 200–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinello, Daniel R. 1999. “Linking Party to Judicial Ideology in American Courts: A Meta-Analysis.” The Justice System Journal 20(3): 219–54.Google Scholar
Pitzl, Mary Jo, Ryman, Anne, and O’Dell, Rob. 2016. “Long lines, too few polls frustrate metro Phoenix primary voters.” AZ Central. Retrieved from: www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/22/arizona-primary-voter-turnout-long-lines/82125816/.Google Scholar
Plante, Thomas G. and Sherman, Allen C.. 2001. “Research on faith and health: New approaches to old questions.” In Plante, Thomas G. and Sherman, Allen C. (eds.), Faith and Health: Psychological Perspectives. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Powe, Barbara D. and Johnson, Alonzo. 1995. “Fatalism as a barrier to cancer screening among African-Americans: Philosophical perspectives.” Journal of Religion and Health, 34(1995): 119–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prakash, Saikrishna Bangalore. 2020. “The age of the winning executive: The Case of Donald J. Trump.” Harvard Law Review, 134: 141–166.Google Scholar
Price, Zachary. 2025. “Trumpian Impoundments in Historical Perspective.” In Symposium on Executive Overreach and the Rule of Law in Trump II. Stanford Law Review.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuters 2025. “Major Cases Involving Trump before the Supreme Court.” Retrieved from: www.reuters.com/legal/major-cases-involving-trump-before-us-supreme-court-2025-09-22/Google Scholar
Roberts, John. 2024. “Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary.” Retrieved from: www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2024year-endreport.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Jeffrey. 2009. “The Stealth Justice.” The New York Times. Retrieved from: www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/opinion/02rosen.html.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald N. (2022) “The Triumph of Politics: The Republican Party’s takeover of the US Supreme Court.” National Law School Journal, 16(1): 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, Brooke. 2025. “Appeals Court says Ed. Dept. Can Fire Civil Staff.” Education Week. Retrieved from: www.edweek.org/policy-politics/appeals-court-says-ed-dept-can-fire-civil-rights-staff/2025/09.Google Scholar
Shane, Peter M. 2025. “The Unbearable Lightness of the Unitary Executive Theory. The Regulatory Review. Retrieved from: www.theregreview.org/2025/03/03/shane-the-unbearable-lightness-of-the-unitary-executive-theory/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Lijang, Condit, Celeste M., and Wright, Lanelle. 2009. “The psychometric property and validation of a fatalism scale.” Psychology and Health, 24(5): 597–613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonovits, Gabor, McCoy, Jennifer, and Littvay, Levente. 2022. “Democratic hypocrisy and out-group threat: Explaining citizen support for democratic erosion.” The Journal of Politics, 84(3): 1806–1811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sotomayor, Sonia. 2022. Dissenting opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. 597 U.S. 215.Google Scholar
Stone, Geoffrey R. 2008. “The Roberts Court, stare decisis, and the future of constitutional law.” Tulane Law Review, 82: 1533–1559.Google Scholar
Straughan, Paulin T. and Seow, Adeline. 1998. “Fatalism reconceptualized: A concept to predict health screening behavior.” Journal of Gender, Culture, and Health, 3(1998): 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strother, Logan, and Gadarian, Shana Kushner. 2022. “Public perceptions of the Supreme Court: How policy disagreement affects legitimacy.” The Forum, 20(1): 87–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumrall, Allen C., and Baumann, Beau J.. 2023. “Clarifying judicial aggrandizement.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 172: 24–42.Google Scholar
The Leadership Conference Education Fund. 2019. Democracy diverted: Polling place closures and the right to vote. Retrieved from: http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/reports/Democracy-Diverted.pdf.Google Scholar
Tuckness, Alex. 2024. “Locke’s political philosophy.” In Zalta, Edward N. and Nodelman, Uri (eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-politicalGoogle Scholar
Tushnet, Mark. 2013. In the Balance: Law and Politics on the Roberts Court. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Tushnet, Mark. 2018. “The Pirate’s Code: Constitutional conventions in US constitutional law.” Pepperdine Law Review, 45: 481.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. and Trinkner, Rick. 2017. Why Children Follow Rules: Legal Socialization and the Development of Legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 1988. “What is procedural justice?: Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures.” Law & Society Review, 22(1): 103–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 1998. “Trust and democratic governance.” In Braithwaite, Valerie and Levi, Margaret (eds.), Trust and Governance, pp. 269–294. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 2001. “Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions?” Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19(2): 215–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyler, Tom R. 2003. “Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law.” Crime and Justice, 30: 283–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valenti, Giusy D. and Faraci, Palmira. 2022. “Instruments measuring fatalism: A systemic review.” Psychological Assessment, 34(2): 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vladeck, Stephen. 2023. The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Yen, Chih-Long. 2013. “It is our destiny to die: The effects of mortality salience and culture-priming on fatalism and karma belief.” International Journal of Psychology, 48(5): 818–828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, William. G. (2025, September 30). Opinion in American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (No. 1:25-cv-10685-WGY). U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zilis, Michael A. 2015. The Limits of Legitimacy: Dissenting Opinions, Media Coverage, and Public Responses to Supreme Court Decisions. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zilis, Michael A. 2017. “The political consequences of Supreme Court consensus: Media coverage, public opinion, and unanimity as a public-facing strategy.” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 54: 229.Google Scholar
Zilis, Michael A. 2018. “Minority groups and judicial legitimacy: Group affect and the incentives for judicial responsiveness.” Political Research Quarterly, 71(2): 270–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zilis, Michael A. 2022. “How identity politics polarizes rule of law opinions.” Political Behavior, 44(1): 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, No. 25A169 (U.S. Sept. 8, 2025) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting, joined by Kagan & Jackson).Google Scholar
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (603 U.S. ___)Google Scholar
Relentless v. Department of CommerceGoogle Scholar
Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113)Google Scholar
Trump v. United States (603 U.S. ___)Google Scholar
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (603 U.S. ___)Google Scholar
Relentless v. Department of CommerceGoogle Scholar
Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113)Google Scholar
Trump v. United States (603 U.S. ___)Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this element
conforms to version 2.0 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic
(A)
level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visual Accessibility
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.