The Impact of Racial Representation on Judicial Legitimacy: White Reactions to Latinos on the Bench

Abstract

Despite evidence that racial diversification has increased support for the judiciary, political scientists know little about the heterogeneous effects of diversification across different population segments. Previous research illustrates that including Black judges increases judicial legitimacy among the Black population, but it decreases the legitimacy of the courts among the White population. We expand on this knowledge by examining the impact of adding Latinos to the bench. Our survey experiment compares White respondents’ perception of the courts based on differing levels of Latino representation in the ruling panel. Does descriptive representation in the racialized issue area of immigration signal fairness and legitimacy to White respondents? Or does the inclusion of Latino jurists in immigration cases trigger racial animosity and decreasing support for the courts? We find that when the court rules against the White respondent’s preference, they tend to penalize all-White judicial panels that rule against the perceived interest of Latinos. Additionally, we find that when presented with a Latino majority panel, White respondents who disagree with the ruling are more likely to punish the anti-Latino decisions as their levels of group consciousness increase. Ultimately, our findings illustrate how judicial diversity may affect the countermajoritarian capacity of the judiciary.

How the Trump Administration’s Quota Policy Transformed Immigration Judging

“…The same is true for female immigration judges (Beougher 2016;Chand, Schreckhise, and Bowers 2017;Keith, Holmes, and Miller 2013;Ramji-Nogales, Schoenholtz, and Schrag 2007;United States Government Accountability Office 2008; and immigration judges with prior experience working for nongovernmental organizations focused on indigent legal aid (Kim and Semet 2020;Ramji-Nogales, Schoenholtz, and Schrag 2007). And while not studied in prior empirical immigration court research, we would expect a similar effect to be present for many Latinx judges (Achury et al 2023;Hofer and Casellas 2020). By contrast, other immigration judges are more likely to issue removals or deny asylum compared to their colleagues, including immigration judges with prior career experience working in immigration enforcement (e.g., for the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] or Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS]), employed as a prosecutor, or serving in the military (Miller, Keith, and Holmes 2014;Ramji-Nogales, Schoenholtz, and Schrag 2007).…”

Accountability for Court Packing

“…Still, it seems better to us to use the literature on these apex courts as a starting point, even though theories about high courts might not apply perfectly to our research setting. In this way, we follow in the well-trodden path of other literature on lower courts, which must often rely on what measures are available, knowing they may not perfectly align with concepts of primary theoretical importance (e.g., Benesh 2006) or may measure important concepts but be limited in geographic or temporal scope (e.g., Achury et al 2022). We hope future research on non-apex courts will remedy these deficiencies.…”