IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v105y2024i4p1164-1179.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Breaking the bank: Personal financial interests of Supreme Court justices and institutional legitimacy

Author

Listed:
  • Thora Giallouri
  • Elli Menounou

Abstract

Objective We study the relationship between lack of recusals by Supreme Court justices in cases where they have a direct or indirect personal financial interest and diffuse support for the Court. Justices should recuse when they have a personal stake in a case; otherwise, decisions are perceived as biased and violating the rule of law. Despite popular interest in this behavior and significant consequences for societal acquiescence, there are no empirical studies assessing this relationship. Methods We construct a survey experiment with four conditions and a control. Each condition displays an article discussing the failure of different justices to recuse from a case involving a direct (stocks owned in the litigant party) or an indirect (stocks owned in the industry of the litigant party) personal financial interest. Results We find that not recusing from a case where direct personal financial interests exist negatively affects institutional legitimacy, but indirect conflicts of interest show no effect on diffuse support. Additionally, ideological congruence between the public and justice involved in the scenario not only does not mitigate negative effects but rather enhances harm toward diffuse support. Conclusion Non‐recusals in cases where a justice has a direct financial conflict of interest negatively affect Court legitimacy.

Suggested Citation

  • Thora Giallouri & Elli Menounou, 2024. "Breaking the bank: Personal financial interests of Supreme Court justices and institutional legitimacy," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1164-1179, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:105:y:2024:i:4:p:1164-1179
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13407
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13407
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13407?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. Brian J. Fogarty & S. Nasser Qadri & Patrick C. Wohlfarth, 2020. "Personalizing the U.S. Supreme Court Through Attention to Individual Justices," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(2), pages 825-841, March.
    2. Daniel Martin Katz & Michael J Bommarito II & Tyler Soellinger & James Ming Chen, 2015. "Law on the Market? Abnormal Stock Returns and Supreme Court Decision-Making," Papers 1508.05751, arXiv.org, revised May 2017.
    3. Nathan T. Carrington & Colin French, 2021. "One Bad Apple Spoils the Bunch: Kavanaugh and Change in Institutional Support for the Supreme Court," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1484-1495, July.
    4. Gibson, James L., 2008. "Challenges to the Impartiality of State Supreme Courts: Legitimacy Theory and “New-Style” Judicial Campaigns," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 59-75, February.
    5. L. J. Zigerell, 2022. "Did Brett Kavanaugh's overt partisanship cause severe harm to the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(4), pages 789-793, July.
    6. Stephen P. Nicholson & Thomas G. Hansford, 2014. "Partisans in Robes: Party Cues and Public Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 620-636, July.
    7. Brandon L. Bartels & Christopher D. Johnston, 2013. "On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(1), pages 184-199, January.
    8. Christopher N. Krewson & Jean R. Schroedel, 2023. "Modern judicial confirmation hearings and institutional support for the Supreme Court," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(3), pages 364-369, May.
    9. Alex Badas, 2019. "The Applied Legitimacy Index: A New Approach to Measuring Judicial Legitimacy," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 100(5), pages 1848-1861, August.
    10. Jordan Carr Peterson & Thora Giallouri & Elli Menounou, 2021. "The Personal Finances of United States Supreme Court Justices and Decision-making in Economic Litigation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 50(2), pages 379-405.
    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. Nathan T. Carrington & Logan Strother, 2023. "Plugging the pipe? Evaluating the (null) effects of leaks on Supreme Court legitimacy," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 669-712, September.
    2. Christopher N. Krewson & Jean R. Schroedel, 2023. "Modern judicial confirmation hearings and institutional support for the Supreme Court," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(3), pages 364-369, May.
    3. Kayla S. Canelo, 2022. "Citations to Interest Groups and Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 189-222, March.
    4. Christopher Brough & Li‐Yin Liu & Yao‐Yuan Yeh, 2024. "Judicial reasoning, individual cultural types, and support for COVID‐19 vaccine mandates," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(3), pages 448-470, May.
    5. Nathan T. Carrington & Colin French, 2022. "Mechanisms, measurements, and manifestations in evaluating the effects of confirmation hearings on Supreme Court legitimacy," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1290-1294, September.
    6. 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).
    7. 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).
    8. Risa Kitagawa, 2024. "Justice as fairness or retribution? Citizen reactions to domestic trials of wartime violence," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(4), pages 612-626, July.
    9. 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.
    10. Filippo Mezzanotti, 2021. "Roadblock to Innovation: The Role of Patent Litigation in Corporate R&D," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7362-7390, December.
    11. Christopher N. Krewson & Jean R. Schroedel, 2020. "Public Views of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Aftermath of the Kavanaugh Confirmation," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1430-1441, July.
    12. Chen, Daniel L. & Sethi, Jasmin, 2016. "Insiders, Outsiders, and Involuntary Unemployment: Sexual Harrassment Exacerbates Gender Inequality," IAST Working Papers 16-44, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    13. Kirsten Martin & Ari Waldman, 2023. "Are Algorithmic Decisions Legitimate? The Effect of Process and Outcomes on Perceptions of Legitimacy of AI Decisions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(3), pages 653-670, March.
    14. Damon Cann & Jeff Yates, 2021. "Evaluating diffuse support for state high courts among individuals with varying levels of policy agreement," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2824-2835, November.
    15. James L. Gibson & Gregory A. Caldeira, 2013. "Judicial Impartiality, Campaign Contributions, and Recusals: Results from a National Survey," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 76-103, March.
    16. Nathan T. Carrington & Colin French, 2021. "One Bad Apple Spoils the Bunch: Kavanaugh and Change in Institutional Support for the Supreme Court," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1484-1495, July.
    17. James R. Rogers & Joseph Daniel Ura, 2020. "A majoritarian basis for judicial countermajoritarianism," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(3), pages 435-459, July.
    18. L. J. Zigerell, 2022. "Did Brett Kavanaugh's overt partisanship cause severe harm to the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(4), pages 789-793, July.
    19. Chen, Daniel L. & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Government Expropriation Increases Economic Growth and Racial Inequality: Evidence from Eminent Domain," IAST Working Papers 16-46, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    20. Scott Simon Boddery & Damon Cann & Laura Moyer & Jeff Yates, 2023. "The role of cable news hosts in public support for Supreme Court decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 1045-1069, December.

    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:105:y:2024:i:4:p:1164-1179. 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.