Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Friendship is Rare

The Influence of Off-Bench Friendships on Support for the U.S. Supreme Court

Bibliographic Data

ID7146572
AuthorsMiles T Armaly (0000-0001-8945-5797, University of Mississippi), Jessica A Schoenherr (0000-0002-2829-9791, University of South Carolina, corresponding author)
Year2025
Volume53
Issue2
Pages181-192
Publication date2025-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican Politics Research (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1532-673X • E-ISSN: 1552-3373
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/1532673x241263080
OpenAlexW4399871219
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited52

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

  • Depictions of Partisan Bias at Oral Argument and Public Evaluations of the U.S. Supreme Court

    Open Access•Joshua Boston, Christopher Krewson et al.•Political Research Quarterly•2026

  • Rules for Thee, Not for Me

    Open Access•Miles T Armaly, Elizabeth A Lane•Social Science Quarterly•2026

  • You Reached Out to Me to Help

    Open Access•Jonathan M King, Jessica A Schoenherr et al.•Politics & Gender•2025

  • Curbing the Court

    Open Access•Brandon L Bartels, Christian D Johnston et al.•Curbing the Court•2020

  • Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations

    James L Gibson, Gregory A Caldeira•Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations•2009

  • The Limits of Legitimacy

    Michael A Zilis•The limits of legitimacy•2015

  • Independent Politics

    Open Access•Samara Klar, Yanna Krupnikov•Independent Politics•2016

  • The online laboratory

    Open Access•John J Horton, David G Rand et al.•Experimental Economics•2011

  • The Maintenance of Institutional Legitimacy in Supreme Court Justices’ Public Rhetoric

    Open Access•Colin Glennon, Logan Strother•Journal of Law and Courts•2019

  • A Matter of Opinion? How Unexpected Opinion Authors Influence Support for Supreme Court Decisions

    Open Access•Jonathan M King, Jessica A Schoenherr•Journal of Law and Courts•2024

  • Did you hear about Clarence Thomas? Measuring public attention toward the Supreme Court

    Open Access•Christopher Krewson, Jessica A Schoenherr et al.•Research & Politics•2024

  • No home court advantage

    Open Access•Miles T Armaly, A M Enders•Research & Politics•2021

  • Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents

    Open Access•Claire Huff, Dustin Tingley•Research & Politics•2015

  • Humor in Supreme Court oral arguments

    Open Access•R Urbatsch•Humor - International Journal of…•2022

  • Congress, The Electoral Connection

    Michael J Ross, David R Mayhew•The Western Political Quarterly•1975

  • Public Views of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Aftermath of the Kavanaugh Confirmation

    Open Access•Christopher N Krewson, Christopher Krewson et al.•Social Science Quarterly•2020

  • One Bad Apple Spoils the Bunch

    Open Access•Nathan Carrington, Colin French•Social Science Quarterly•2021

  • The Applied Legitimacy Index

    Open Access•Alex Badas•Social Science Quarterly•2019

  • Media Coverage and Public Approval of the U.S. Supreme Court

    Matthew P Hitt, Kathleen Searles•Political Communication•2018

  • Issue Preferences and Evaluations of the U.S. Supreme Court

    Marc J Hetherington, Joseph L Smith•Public Opinion Quarterly•2007

  • Racing the Clock

    Open Access•Blair Read, Lukas Wolters et al.•Political Analysis•2021

  • Is the U.S. Supreme Court's Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology

    Open Access•James L Gibson, Michael J Nelson•American Journal of Political…•2014

  • Knowing the Supreme Court? A Reconsideration of Public Ignorance of the High Court

    James L Gibson, Gregory A Caldeira•The Journal of Politics•2009

  • Legal Doctrine on Collegial Courts

    Dimitri Landa, Jeffrey R Lax•The Journal of Politics•2009

  • Political Justice

    Brandon L Bartels, Chris Johnston et al.•Public Opinion Quarterly•2012

  • Descriptive representation and public support for Supreme Court nominees

    Open Access•Jaclyn Kaslovsky, Jon C Rogowski et al.•Political Science Research and…•2021

  • Judicial Consensus and Public Opinion

    Open Access•Michael F Salamone•Political Research Quarterly•2014

  • Extra-judicial Actor Induced Change in Supreme Court Legitimacy

    Open Access•Miles T Armaly•Political Research Quarterly•2018

  • Loyalty over Fairness

    Open Access•Miles T Armaly•Political Research Quarterly•2021

  • Political Hearings Reinforce Legal Norms

    Open Access•Christopher Krewson•Political Research Quarterly•2023

  • Building Institutional Legitiimacy

    Open Access•Vanessa A Baird•Political Research Quarterly•2001

  • Save this Honorable Court

    Open Access•Christopher N Krewson, Christopher Krewson•Political Research Quarterly•2019

  • One Tribe to Bind Them All

    Open Access•L Mason, Julie Wronski•Political Psychology•2018

  • Who is Punished? Conditions Affecting Voter Evaluations of Legislators Who Do Not Compromise

    Open Access•Nichole M Bauer, Laurel Harbridge-Yong et al.•Political Behavior•2017

  • Public Preferences for Bipartisanship in the Policymaking Process

    Open Access•Laurel Harbridge, N Malhotra et al.•Legislative Studies Quarterly•2014

  • Chief Justice Roberts's Health Care Decision Disrobed

    Open Access•D P Christenson, David M Glick•American Journal of Political…•2015

  • On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public

    Open Access•Brandon L Bartels, Christian D Johnston et al.•American Journal of Political…•2013

  • All Male Panels? Representation and Democratic Legitimacy

    Open Access•Anthony Clayton, Amanda Clayton et al.•American Journal of Political…•2019

  • Appropriators not Position Takers

    Open Access•Justin Grimmer•American Journal of Political…•2013

  • Your Honor’s Misdeeds

    Open Access•Joshua Boston, Benjamin J Kassow et al.•PS Political Science & Politics•2023

  • The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States

    Sharad Iyengar, Yphtach Lelkes et al.•Annual Review of Political Science•2018

  • Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation

    T R Tyler•Annual Review of Psychology•2005

  • Losing, but Accepting

    Open Access•James L Gibson, Milton Lodge et al.•Law & Society Review•2014

  • Public Perceptions of Women's Inclusion and Feelings of Political Efficacy

    Open Access•Katelyn E Stauffer•American Political Science Review•2021

Unique citing works3
Citations per year3
Citation span2025 - 2026 (2)
Citation velocitycurrent
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 3

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae