Explaining High-Profile Coverage of State Supreme Court Decisions*

Abstract

Objective. In this article, we investigate the decision of media in the U.S. states to give high-profile coverage to state supreme court decisions. While research on the U.S. Supreme Court has forged an association between media coverage and the political salience of court decisions, scholars have been unable to examine such coverage in the increasingly important state courts of last resort. Methods. Utilizing new data of high-profile coverage over time in these courts, we examine the extent to which case characteristics, judicial behavior, and institutional variation influence media attention. Our empirical model covers 28,045 state supreme court cases over all 50 states, between the years 1995–1998. Results. Our findings indicate that the likelihood of high-profile coverage increases when certain case characteristics, particularly declarations of unconstitutionality, are present, in addition to dissent within a court. Despite the importance of institutional differences among state supreme courts, front-page coverage is not affected by this variation. Conclusions. In our conclusions, we evaluate those scenarios in which high-profile media coverage is more likely for state supreme court cases, and the possible implications this may have for judicial politics.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 34 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.