Majority Opinions: The Political Consequences of an Out-of-Step Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s composition tends to remain stable over time, yet its docket and rulings change, affecting our understanding of the Court’s broader political ramifications. In Majority Opinions, Stephen Jessee, Neil Malhotra, and Maya Sen examine how the Supreme Court’s alignment with public opinion shifts dramatically, shaping its legitimacy, approval, and vulnerability to reform. Introducing an empirical method and framework that systematically compares Americans’ preferences on case outcomes with the Court’s actual rulings, the authors uncover yawning gaps and unexpected alignments across issues and terms. They show how changes in court composition – Amy Coney Barrett replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example – can shift the Court’s trajectory rightward, while docket choices can move rulings closer to public sentiment after unpopular rulings. Examining how the Supreme Court navigates a polarized political environment, the authors reveal how its choices have profoundly affected influence, legitimacy, and national policy.