Does identity politics change how people view the rule of law and courts? This paper uses original survey experiments to examine whether Americans’ support for the rule of law and the institutional legitimacy of the Supreme Court depends on which groups benefit from judicial rulings. The study tests whether group identities condition acceptance of decisions, connecting contemporary polarization and tribalization to public views about legal institutions.
Original survey experiments Focus on group beneficiaries Public acceptance conditioned by identity
Data and methods
The author reports using original survey experiments administered to both representative and convenience samples in the United States. The design varied information about which groups benefited from rulings and measured respondents’ judgments about institutional legitimacy and acceptance of decisions. The abstract identifies survey experiments as the primary research method and notes sampling variation between representative and convenience samples.
Main findings
According to the abstract, institutional legitimacy of the Supreme Court depends on the groups that benefit from a ruling, and the public’s acceptance of decisions is conditioned on group considerations. These results are presented as raising questions about the health of the rule of law in the U.S., with findings described cautiously and tied to the experimental evidence.
- Institutional legitimacy varies with perceived group beneficiaries.
- Acceptance of court decisions is contingent on group identity considerations.
