The literature regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s influence on public opinion presents a puzzle: observational studies tend to not reap evidence that Supreme Court decisions increase support for a policy, while experimental designs often do. What accounts for this gap? In The Limits of Legitimacy, Michael A. Zilis makes a strong case that media coverage is the missing link that explains this disparity. First, he establishes that the number of dissenting justices has a significant effect on how reporters portray decisions. Then he provides evidence that media coverage, as a primary source of information for the public regarding the decisions, limits the ability of the Court to increase public opinion in spite of its relatively robust diffuse support. The first part of the book explores factors that influence how the press covers decisions. Zilis offers the dissenus dynamics model: members of media who must satisfy the goals of simplicity, accuracy, and timeliness in crafting compelling reports on decisions rely on relatively basic characteristics of the majority opinion when framing their stories. Specifically, he considers the impact of the number of dissenters and ideological diversity among the justices voting in the majority. First, he provides a case study using a most-similar comparison of Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and Kelo v. City of New London, two takings cases decided by the Supreme Court. Despite the fact that the Court interpreted the takings clause broadly in both decisions, media coverage of the unanimous decision in Lingle was relatively positive, while reports regarding the split decision in Kelo were far more critical. Next, Zilis uses statistical methods to consider how case characteristics influence decision support in newspaper coverage. His results indicate that the voting pattern of the justices is a major factor in whether the press covers a decision in a favorable light. The evidence for the impact of ideological diversity is far more mixed. Finally, Zilis considers the extent to which decision characteristics influence decision support and televised incivility in broadcast reports. In these analyses, vote counts are again a powerful predictor of positive treatment, while ideological diversity is not.