The Rights Paradox : How Group Attitudes Shape US Supreme Court Legitimacy

Examining the intersection of identity politics and Supreme Court legitimacy, this book is for scholars of judicial politics, American politics, and socio-legal studies. It is also relevant to anyone interested in equal rights, minority rights, relevant Supreme Court decisions, and the Court's legitimacy in an era of polarization and conflict.

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.