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

Abstract

“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.