IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v102y2021i2p920-938.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defying the Supreme Court: The Impact of Overt Resistance to Landmark Legal Rulings

Author

Listed:
  • Michael A. Zilis
  • Xander Borne

Abstract

Objective To explore the political impact of overt resistance to judicial rulings. Existing approaches to answering this question rely on a framework that overlooks important components of how resistance resonates in the modern era. Methods Focusing on the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges and resistance by local county clerks, we model the relationship between resistance and public opinion. We demonstrate that disobedience affected the media's framing of same‐sex marriage, changing it from an issue framed primarily around equal rights to one in which alternative, anti‐same‐sex marriage frames proliferated. We then use these frames to design an externally valid survey experiment, which we administer to a national sample. Results We find that resistance framing depresses support for same‐sex marriage and increases support for defying the Court. Conclusion The findings suggest that political resistance to the judiciary continues to resonate in the modern era, although not in the ways that many assume.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael A. Zilis & Xander Borne, 2021. "Defying the Supreme Court: The Impact of Overt Resistance to Landmark Legal Rulings," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(2), pages 920-938, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:2:p:920-938
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12927
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12927
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12927?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Franklin, Charles H. & Kosaki, Liane C., 1989. "Republican Schoolmaster: The U.S. Supreme Court, Public Opinion, and Abortion," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(3), pages 751-771, September.
    2. Jeffrey K. Staton & Georg Vanberg, 2008. "The Value of Vagueness: Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 504-519, July.
    3. Joseph Daniel Ura, 2014. "Backlash and Legitimation: Macro Political Responses to Supreme Court Decisions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(1), pages 110-126, January.
    4. Carrubba, Clifford J. & Clark, Tom S., 2012. "Rule Creation in a Political Hierarchy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(3), pages 622-643, August.
    5. Chong, Dennis & Druckman, James N., 2010. "Dynamic Public Opinion: Communication Effects over Time," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(4), pages 663-680, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    2. Tom S Clark, 2016. "Scope and precedent: judicial rule-making under uncertainty," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(3), pages 353-384, July.
    3. Sansone, Dario, 2019. "Pink work: Same-sex marriage, employment and discrimination," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    4. Parker Hevron, 2018. "Judicialization and Its Effects: Experiments as a Way Forward," Laws, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-21, May.
    5. Agustin Casas & Federico Curci & Antoni-Italo De Moragas, 2022. "Checks and Balances and Nation Building: The Spanish Constitutional Court and Catalonia," Working Papers 189, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    6. Yannis Karagiannis, 2014. "Communication effects, ethnicity, and support for secessionism in stateless nations: results from a survey experiment in Catalonia," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers p0386, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    7. Chen, Daniel L. & Yeh, Susan, 2022. "How do rights revolutions occur? Free speech and the first amendment," TSE Working Papers 22-1396, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    8. Bernardo Guimaraes & Bruno Meyerhof Salama, 2023. "Permitting Prohibitions," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(1), pages 241-271.
    9. Emily Hencken Ritter & Scott Wolford, 2012. "Bargaining and the effectiveness of international criminal regimes," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 24(2), pages 149-171, April.
    10. John M. Carey & Andrew M. Guess & Peter J. Loewen & Eric Merkley & Brendan Nyhan & Joseph B. Phillips & Jason Reifler, 2022. "The ephemeral effects of fact-checks on COVID-19 misperceptions in the United States, Great Britain and Canada," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(2), pages 236-243, February.
    11. Yıldırım, Engin & Sert, Mehmet Fatih & Kartal, Burcu & Çalış, Şuayyip, 2023. "Non-compliance of the European Court of Human Rights decisions: A machine learning analysis," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    12. Eva‐Maria Trüdinger & Achim Hildebrandt & Sebastian Jäckle & Jonas Löser, 2021. "Responding to Policy Signals? An Experimental Study on Information about Policy Adoption and Data Retention Policy Support in Germany," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(2), pages 830-843, March.
    13. Ian R Turner, 2017. "Working smart and hard? Agency effort, judicial review, and policy precision," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(1), pages 69-96, January.
    14. Vicinanza, Paul & Goldberg, Amir & Srivastava, Sameer, 2021. "Quantifying Vision through Language Demonstrates that Visionary Ideas Come from the Periphery," OSF Preprints 3h8xp, Center for Open Science.
    15. Guimaraesy, Bernardo & Meyerhof Salama, Bruno, 2017. "Contingent judicial deference: theory and application to usury laws," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86146, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Jonas Tallberg & Michael Zürn, 2019. "The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: introduction and framework," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 581-606, December.
    17. Martin Baekgaard & Søren Serritzlew & Jens Blom-Hansen, 2016. "Causes of Fiscal Illusion: Lack of Information or Lack of Attention?," Public Budgeting & Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 26-44, June.
    18. Shay Lavie, 2017. "Discretionary review and undesired cases," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 265-285, October.
    19. Gauri, Varun & Staton, Jeffrey K. & Cullell, Jorge Vargas, 2013. "A public strategy for compliance monitoring," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6523, The World Bank.
    20. Katerina Linos & Kimberly Twist, 2016. "The Supreme Court, the Media, and Public Opinion: Comparing Experimental and Observational Methods," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 223-254.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:2:p:920-938. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.