Normative Legitimacy: Rules of Appropriateness in Citizens’ Assessments of Individual Judicial Decisions

Abstract

This study investigates the interaction between rules of appropriateness, popular support for judicial decisions, and policy preferences in assessments of the legitimacy of court decisions. We conduct two 3 × 2 × 2 experiments examining participants’ perceptions of legitimacy in cases involving the tort liability of gun manufacturers (Experiment 1) and same-sex marriage (Experiment 2). By manipulating the explanation for the judge's decision (bribe, political contribution, ideology, and law), we examine how participants assess the legitimacy of motivations suggesting compliance with, and deviations from, rules of appropriate judicial behavior in relation to one another. We also analyze how such rules interact with other factors theorized to influence assessments of legitimacy. Our findings demonstrate that rules of appropriateness matter most in participants’ assessments of the legitimacy of court decisions. Moreover, as hypothesized, the influence of other variables is conditioned on compliance with decision-making rules. In Experiment 1, broad public support for decisions enhances legitimacy assessments, but only where the grounds of decision are not viewed as wholly inappropriate. In Experiment 2, involving the salient issue of same-sex marriage, personal preferences influence legitimacy assessments, but again, not where participants view grounds for decision as particularly suspect.