Friendship is Rare
The Influence of Off-Bench Friendships on Support for the U.S. Supreme Court
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7146572 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Miles T Armaly (0000-0001-8945-5797, University of Mississippi), Jessica A Schoenherr (0000-0002-2829-9791, University of South Carolina, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 53 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 181-192 |
| Publication date | 2025-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Politics Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1532-673X • E-ISSN: 1552-3373 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1532673x241263080 |
| OpenAlex | W4399871219 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 52 |
Cross-aisle” interpersonal relationships on the Supreme Court receive significant attention from the justices and the media that covers them. When speaking to the public, justices frequently deflect questions about legal differences with each other by pointing to their ability to get along off the bench, suggesting everyone is just doing their job and there are no hard feelings when opinions go the other way. We theorize these tales of off-bench collegiality create a non-judicial avenue for public evaluation of the Court and its justices. But we also suspect that case outcomes limit these stories’ influence. To test this theory, we conducted a survey experiment that exposed individuals to several stories about judicial friendships. We find that discussing friendships influences attitudes toward the Court most when such stories include a clear cue about the friendly justices’ opposing ideologies. When accounting for ex ante policy preferences, however, that influence is entirely attenuated. Our results indicate these stories impact evaluations of the Court, but outcome-based evaluations prove more critical, suggesting the menu of options for the Court to bolster public support is limited in the context of case outcomes
Friendship · Political science · Supreme court · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law, Rights, and Freedoms · Legal Systems and Judicial Processes · Psychology · Social Psychology
Curbing the Court
Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations
The Limits of Legitimacy
Independent Politics
The online laboratory
The Maintenance of Institutional Legitimacy in Supreme Court Justices’ Public Rhetoric
A Matter of Opinion? How Unexpected Opinion Authors Influence Support for Supreme Court Decisions
Did you hear about Clarence Thomas? Measuring public attention toward the Supreme Court
No home court advantage
Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents
Humor in Supreme Court oral arguments
Congress, The Electoral Connection
Public Views of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Aftermath of the Kavanaugh Confirmation
One Bad Apple Spoils the Bunch
The Applied Legitimacy Index
Media Coverage and Public Approval of the U.S. Supreme Court
Issue Preferences and Evaluations of the U.S. Supreme Court
Racing the Clock
Is the U.S. Supreme Court's Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology
Knowing the Supreme Court? A Reconsideration of Public Ignorance of the High Court
Legal Doctrine on Collegial Courts
Political Justice
Descriptive representation and public support for Supreme Court nominees
Judicial Consensus and Public Opinion
Extra-judicial Actor Induced Change in Supreme Court Legitimacy
Loyalty over Fairness
Political Hearings Reinforce Legal Norms
Building Institutional Legitiimacy
Save this Honorable Court
One Tribe to Bind Them All
Who is Punished? Conditions Affecting Voter Evaluations of Legislators Who Do Not Compromise
Public Preferences for Bipartisanship in the Policymaking Process
Chief Justice Roberts's Health Care Decision Disrobed
On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public
All Male Panels? Representation and Democratic Legitimacy
Appropriators not Position Takers
Your Honor’s Misdeeds
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation
Losing, but Accepting
Public Perceptions of Women's Inclusion and Feelings of Political Efficacy
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 3 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |