The Rights Paradox

Abstract

The US Supreme Court is the chief institution responsible for guarding minority rights and equality under the law, yet, in order to function authoritatively, the Court depends on a majority of Americans to accept its legitimacy and on policymakers to enforce its rulings. The Rights Paradox confronts this tension, offering a careful conceptualization and theory of judicial legitimacy that emphasizes its connection to social groups. Zilis demonstrates that attitudes toward minorities and other groups are pivotal for shaping popular support for the Court, with the Court losing support when it rules in favor of unpopular groups. Moreover, justices are aware of these dynamics and strategically moderate their decisions when concerned about the Court's legitimacy. Drawing on survey and experimental evidence, as well as analysis of Court decision-making across many recent high-profile cases, Zilis examines the implications for 'equal justice under the law' in an era of heightened polarization and conflict.

Jobs and Punishment: Public Opinion on Leniency for White-Collar Crime

“…This may be an especially sensitive area of action because negative news and unpopular decisions can erode public support and eventually compromise the legitimacy of both courts and law enforcement agencies ( Casillas et al 2011 ). As Zilis (2021) has argued in the case of the Supreme Court, widespread antipathy toward “big business,” and a string of unpopular decisions in favor of corporate rights, may have contributed to decreasing its empirical legitimacy. In the United States, the Department of Justice (DoJ) oversees the Fraud Section, responsible for investigating and prosecuting sophisticated economic crimes.…”