The Limits of Legitimacy: Dissenting Opinions, Media Coverage, and Public Responses to Supreme Court Decisions

Hazelton, Morgan L. W.

doi:10.1002/polq.12580

Cited by 14 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The media are more than a conduit of information, however. As noted earlier, research suggests that journalists' selection of cases to cover and decisions about how to frame those cases can influence public opinion about the issues involved (Haider-Markel et al, 2006;Hitt & Searles, 2018;Zilis, 2015). There is also evidence that media coverage of court decisions can affect how individuals think about other related issues through a process of frame spillover (Engel, 2013).…”

Section: Media Coverage Of the Us Supreme Court: Patterns Influences ...mentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Through semi-structured interviews, this project addresses those unknowns by examining the decision-making processes of journalists who covered the high-profile Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case. Grounded in the theoretical frameworks of advocacy group agenda-building (Cobb & Elder, 1971;Denham, 2010), media framing (Haider-Markel et al, 2006;Hitt & Searles, 2018;Zilis, 2015) and journalistic routines (Carlson, 2016;Kilgo & Harlow, 2019), this study was designed to answer the following research questions:…”

Section: Smo Efforts To Influence Media Coverage Of Masterpiece Cakeshopmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research has repeatedly demonstrated that by choosing which court cases to cover and how to frame the legal and social issues involved, the news media can influence public awareness of and opinions about those issues and the U.S. Supreme Court itself (Haider-Markel et al, 2006;Hitt & Searles, 2018;Zilis, 2015). However, limited research has specifically examined the impact of civil rights-related SMOs that seek to influence media coverage of U.S. Supreme Court rulings (Coyle et al, 2020;Lazarus, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effects of journalistic routines on LGBTQ+ advocates’ efforts to influence media framing of religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws

Gibson

2023

Newspaper Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In-depth interviews with 26 journalists from large mainstream news outlets who covered the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission U.S. Supreme Court case indicate that LGBTQ+ advocacy organization efforts to influence journalists’ decision-making processes related to story angle and sourcing were unsuccessful. Instead, journalists relied on official court documents as sources, avoiding press advisories from social movement organizations in an effort to maintain neutrality and impartiality.

show abstract

Section: Media Coverage Of the Us Supreme Court: Patterns Influences ...mentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Smo Efforts To Influence Media Coverage Of Masterpiece Cakeshopmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effects of journalistic routines on LGBTQ+ advocates’ efforts to influence media framing of religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws

Gibson

2023

Newspaper Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, Nicholson and Hansford (2014) find that party cues and partisanship affect whether the public accepts a judicial decision. While judicial legitimacy overall resists sharp declines from single decisions (Gibson and Nelson 2015;Gibson et al 2005;Nelson and Gibson 2020), support for courts is at least somewhat tied to the public's ideological or policy agreement with judicial decisions (Zilis 2015(Zilis , 2018.…”

Section: Judicial Philosophy and Support For Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judicial Philosophy and the Public’s Support for Courts

Krewson

Owens

2022

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do Americans’ preferences over judicial philosophy influence their support for judges and judicial decisions? Using an experiment attached to an adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis, we find that people hold preferences over judicial philosophies, that they rely on those preferences to evaluate judges and decisions, and that those preferences are not simply stand-ins for ideology and partisanship. These findings suggest that to understand people’s support for judges and judicial decisions one must pay attention to judicial philosophy.

show abstract

“…140–141; Strother, 2016), and encouraged by intensified media coverage (López et al, 2007; Nadler et al, 2008; Strother, 2017, pp. 87; Zilis, 2015). Notwithstanding, as the Kelo majority of justices emphasized in their decision, nothing in it precluded “any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power” ( Kelo , at 489).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the government exhausting its powers? An empirical examination of eminent domain exercises in New York City pre‐ and post‐Kelo

Levine‐Schnur

2022

Regulation & Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London (2005) which did not limit the use of state's eminent domain powers, led to an unprecedented legislative reaction by almost all 50 states. Of all, New York State stands out as one of the single states not to respond with a legislative amendment. In this study, I ask whether the state's predation was greater in the years following these legal and political developments, in light of the freedom which was granted to local politicians by both the Supreme Court and the state's legislators. The article hypothesizes that contrary to common perceptions, judicial decisions impact local government actions even when no limits on the use of powers are being posed. I use rigorous statistics and scrupulously defined data to expand scholarly understanding of the aftermath of the judicial decision in Kelo. The main finding is that the decision has in fact affected political behavior, but in the opposite direction than commonly expected: politicians in New York City acted consistently with public opinion, which was hostile too Kelo, not by changing the law, but by changing their practice. Studying all known taking exercises in New York City between 1991 and 2019, the paper finds no increase in the number of development projects involving condemnations after 2005. In fact, the probability of a taking for economic development or urban renewal dropped by 90%. The use of eminent domain for such projects declined even when both state and federal courts refrain from interposing any actual limit on its use. The paper lends qualified support to an alternative assertion that takings decisions by government officials are largely shaped by planning and political needs and that officials are sensitive to revealed public preferences even when there is no constitutional or legal impediment on their exercise of power.

show abstract

The Limits of Legitimacy: Dissenting Opinions, Media Coverage, and Public Responses to Supreme Court Decisions

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

The effects of journalistic routines on LGBTQ+ advocates’ efforts to influence media framing of religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws

The effects of journalistic routines on LGBTQ+ advocates’ efforts to influence media framing of religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws

Judicial Philosophy and the Public’s Support for Courts

Is the government exhausting its powers? An empirical examination of eminent domain exercises in New York City pre‐ and post‐Kelo

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About