Legal Reasoning and Public Support for the Supreme Court

• In Event: The Public Politics of Judicial Independence

Abstract

Scholars debate the value of legal reasoning in judicial opinions. We propose that the use of legal reasoning allows judges to secure public acceptance of their decisions. We draw upon descriptive and experimental survey data to test our expectations. Our findings reveal that Americans hold coherent views over how judges employ legal principles when making decisions in cases of constitutional interpretation. These preferences are associated with views over case outcomes, with originalist [pragmatic] respondents more supportive of conservative [liberal] case outcomes even after controlling for party identification and ideology. Experimental results suggest that alignment between these preferences and the legal reasoning contained in the opinions of Supreme Court cases shapes support for case outcomes, including for those individuals ideologically opposed to the ruling. Our findings provide important insight into the ability of courts to secure public acceptance of their decisions and reveal legal reasoning as an important tool for judicial policymaking.

Authors

• Andrew R Stone, Harvard University

• Albert Rivero, Harvard University