In the Light: Procedural Legitimacy, the Shadow Docket, and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court

Abstract

This article examines the impact of procedural regularity on public perceptions of the U.S. Supreme Court. I argue that substantive legitimacy can stem from procedural regularity. Using a novel 2 × 2 × 2 experimental design I develop and test multiple hypotheses base on a procedural regularity and fairness model. The study analyzes how decisions made via the emergency docket affect both diffuse and specific support for the Court, drawing on a multi-wave survey of 3793 nationally representative respondents. Results reveal that procedural irregularities significantly reduce specific support for the Court, while diffuse support remains largely unaffected. This pattern holds even when controlling for factors such as democratic values, policy agreement, and perceived ideological distance. These findings suggest that the Court’s procedural choices can influence public perceptions, particularly specific support. This research offers important insights into the complex relationship between judicial procedures and public opinion, indicating that at least some of the Court's legitimacy is in its own hands. As debates intensify over the Court's use of expedited procedures, this study provides timely, empirical evidence of their potential consequences.