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.

Table of Contents:
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.

About the Author :
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.

Review :
'Drawing on a range of literatures, Zilis develops a compelling and original argument: Citizens evaluate the Supreme Court based on the groups they think the Court is supporting. That alone makes his book a great read. But Zilis goes further, assessing his claim against survey and experimental data covering a range of groups. No readers will leave The Rights Paradox without rethinking everything they thought they knew about the Court's legitimacy.' Lee Epstein, Washington University in St. Louis 'We're in a renaissance period right now with respect to how scholars assess the vital relationship between the US Supreme Court and public opinion. Zilis' The Rights Paradox demonstrates his role as a leading contributor to not just these efforts, but, as he persuasively demonstrates with a bevy of analyses, to our broader understanding of fundamental tenets of judicial behavior as well. This is an exceptionally important book that needs to be read by anyone who researches or teaches about the US Supreme Court.' Ryan Black, Michigan State University 'The Rights Paradox presents an insightful argument about public attitudes toward the Supreme Court and a set of well-designed studies to probe its validity. Zilis provides a new perspective on the forces that shape the Court's legitimacy, a perspective that has important implications for our understanding of the Court.' Lawrence Baum, The Ohio State University 'Zilis successfully integrates several scholarly strands - public opinion, identity politics, the substance of judicial decisions, institutional legitimacy, and judicial decision making - into a definitive scholarly contribution. Not only does The Rights Paradox provide an original explanation of how individuals' feelings toward groups involved in Supreme Court controversies translate into legitimacy judgments, it also connects that theory back to strategic decision making on the Supreme Court.' Brandon L. Bartels, George Washington University