The Rights Paradox How Group Attitudes Shape US Supreme Court Legitimacy

The US Supreme Court is the chief institution responsible for guarding minority rights and equality under the law, yet, in order to function authoritatively, the Court depends on a majority of Americans to accept its legitimacy and on policymakers to enforce its rulings. The Rights Paradox confronts this tension, offering a careful conceptualization and theory of judicial legitimacy that emphasizes its connection to social groups. Zilis demonstrates that attitudes toward minorities and other groups are pivotal for shaping popular support for the Court, with the Court losing support when it rules in favor of unpopular groups. Moreover, justices are aware of these dynamics and strategically moderate their decisions when concerned about the Court's legitimacy. Drawing on survey and experimental evidence, as well as analysis of Court decision-making across many recent high-profile cases, Zilis examines the implications for 'equal justice under the law' in an era of heightened polarization and conflict.

1. Legitimacy and minority rights; 2. The group antipathy theory of supreme court legitimacy; 3. Under siege: gay rights and immigration at the supreme court; 4. Opening the floodgates: big business, citizens united, and evaluations of the court; 5. Experimental tests of the group antipathy model; 6. How citizens use groups to evaluate judicial preferences; 7. Group antipathy and strategic behaviour on the supreme court; 8. Conclusion; References; Cases cited; Index.

Michael A. Zilis is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Kentucky. His research, on political resistance to the US Supreme Court has been supported by the National Science Foundation. He is the author of The Limits of Legitimacy, which was named a 2015 Exemplary Law Book.