The Supreme Court and Policy Legitimation

Abstract

This article examines the legitimacy-conferring potential of the U.S. Supreme Court. Legitimacy-conferring potential is conceptualized as the Court's ability, through mere endorsement of a particular policy, to elevate mass acceptance of that policy. The study reports the results of three experiments utilizing a split-ballot design where, in general, one group is given a version of an issue endorsed by the Supreme Court and a second group is given the same issue not endorsed by the Court. In two of the experiments a third attribution condition is used where an issue is endorsed by the Supreme Court as interpreter of the Constitution. Based on the analysis of 16 policy issues across three experiments, the Court does not appear to have the power to legitimate specific policies bearing its stamp of approval.

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 — 59 citations exist upstream.

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