Evaluating diffuse support for state high courts among individuals with varying levels of policy agreement

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundCourts are unusually vulnerable governing institutions that rely upon deeply seated public support and notions of institutional legitimacy to flourish and remain policy‐relevant. This diffuse support allows courts to be viable policy entities while simultaneously issuing edicts that are counter‐majoritarian. A recent debate centers on whether policy disagreement affects members of the public's diffuse support stores for the nation's High Court.ObjectiveHere, we investigate whether policy disagreement between citizens and their state courts influences public perceptions of state court legitimacy (diffuse support). We also examine how those who disagree with state court policy making (policy “losers”) assay the legitimacy of their state courts differently than those who feel that their policy preferences are promoted by state courts (policy “winners”).MethodsWe draw data from the 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), where researcher‐specific content for 1000 respondents allowed us to ask a number of questions about citizens’ perspectives on their state high courts. We employ Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to analyze these citizen views of state legal institutions.ResultsWe find that policy agreement is quite relevant to citizens’ levels of diffuse support for their state courts and that the relative drivers of policy “winners” and “losers” assessments of their courts’ legitimacy do evince overlap but in important ways are distinct.ConclusionOur findings provide important insight on how citizens view courts and the law. Our investigation also sheds light on the dynamics of citizen disagreement with government outcomes and perceptions of institutional legitimacy.