Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:44:47.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do Justices Defend the Speech They Hate?

An Analysis of In-Group Bias on the US Supreme Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Lee Epstein ,
Christopher M. Parker  and
Jeffrey A. Segal
Lee Epstein
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis
Christopher M. Parker*
Affiliation:
University of Rhode Island
Jeffrey A. Segal
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University
*
Contact the corresponding author, Christopher M. Parker, at [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For decades now, experiments have revealed that we humans tend to evaluate the views or activities of our own group and its members more favorably than those of outsiders. To assess convergence between experimental and observational results, we explore whether US Supreme Court justices fall prey to in-group bias in freedom-of-expression cases. A two-level hierarchical model of all votes cast between the 1953 and 2014 terms confirms that they do. Although liberal justices are (overall) more supportive of free-speech claims than conservative justices, the votes of both liberal and conservative justices tend to reflect their preferences toward the speech’s ideological grouping and not solely an underlying taste for (or against) greater protection for expression. These results suggest the importance of new research programs aimed at evaluating how other cognitive biases identified in experimental work may influence judicial behavior in actual court decisions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , Fall 2018 , pp. 237 - 262
Copyright
© 2018 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We are grateful to Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinksi, and Andrew J. Wistrich, whose experiments inspired us to write this article; to Gad Barzilai, Rebecca Brown, John Drobak, David Klein, Micheal Giles, Linda Greenhouse, Anna Harvey, Leonie Huddy, Adam Liptak, Todd E. Pettys, Richard A. Posner, Nancy Staudt, Eugene Volokh, Ed Whelan, and the anonymous reviewers for useful insights; to participants at workshops or courses at Duke University School of Law, the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, the University of Haifa School of Law, the Faculty of Law at the University of São Paulo, the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and Washington University School of Law for their feedback; and to Andrew D. Martin and Kevin Quinn for reestimating their Martin-Quinn scores without the cases we use in this article. Epstein thanks the National Science Foundation, the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, and Washington University for supporting her work on judicial behavior. All materials necessary to replicate our study are at http://epstein.wustl.edu/research/InGroupBias.html.

References

Abrams, David S., Marianne Betrand, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2012. “Do Judges Vary in Their Treatment of Race?” Journal of Legal Studies 41:347–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L. 2009. “The Constraining Capacity of Legal Doctrine on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 103:474–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2013. “Linking Issues to Ideology in the Supreme Court: The Takings Clause.” Journal of Law and Courts 1:89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2017. Ideology in the Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C., and Ryan J. Owens. 2012. The Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court: Executive Branch Influence and Judicial Decisions. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordalo, Pedro, Nicola Gennaioli, and Andrei Shleifer. 2015. “Salience Theory of Judicial Decisions.” Journal of Legal Studies 44:S7–S33.Google Scholar
Boyd, Christina L., Lee Epstein, and Andrew D. Martin. 2010. “Untangling the Causal Effect of Sex on Judging.” American Journal of Political Science 54:389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brent, James. 1999. “An Agent and Two Principals.” American Politics Quarterly 27:236–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buttelmann, David, and Robert Böhm. 2014. “The Ontogeny of the Motivation That Underlies In-Group Bias.” Psychological Science 25:921–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Yan, and Sherry Xin Li. 2009. “Group Identity and Social Preferences.” American Economic Review 99:431–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Geoffrey L. 2003. “Party over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85:808–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, Gary W., and Jonathan N. Katz. 2002. Elbridge Gerry’s Salamander: The Electoral Consequences of the Reapportionment Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Darren W., and Brian D. Silver. 2004. “Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America.” American Journal of Political Science 48:28–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, William M. Landes, and Richard A. Posner. 2013. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2006. “Trumping the First Amendment.” Journal of Law and Public Policy 21:81–121.Google Scholar
Fowler, James H., and Cindy D. Kam. 2007. “Beyond the Self: Social Identity, Altruism, and Political Participation.” Journal of Politics 69:813–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franko, William, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Christopher Witko. 2013. “Inequality, Self-Interest, and Public Support for ‘Robin Hood’ Tax Policies.” Political Research Quarterly 66:923–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Jennifer Hill. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Donald B. Rubin. 1992. “Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequence.” Statistical Science 7:457–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, Tracey E., and Lee Epstein. 1992. “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 86:323–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grose, Christian R. 2014. “Field Experimental Work on Political Institutions.” Annual Review of Political Science 17:355–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, Chris, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, and Andrew J. Wistrich. 2001. “Inside the Judicial Mind.” Cornell Law Review 86:777–830.Google Scholar
Gutsell, Jennifer N., and Michael Inzlicht. 2012. “Intergroup Differences in the Sharing of Emotive States: Neural Evidence of an Empathy Gap.” Social Cognition and Affective Neuroscience 7:596–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haidt, Jonathan. 2012. The Righteous Mind. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Haidt, Jonathan, and Marc J. Hetherington 2012. “Look How Far We’ve Come Apart.” New York Times, September 17. http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/.Google Scholar
Hewstone, Miles, Mark Rubin, and Hazel Willis. 2002. “Intergroup Bias.” Annual Review of Psychology 53:575–604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, Robert M., and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2004. “A Preference for Deference? The Supreme Court and Judicial Review.” Political Research Quarterly 57:131–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Gregory A., and Neil Malhotra. 2017. “Political Homophily in Social Relationships: Evidence from Online Dating Behavior.” Journal of Politics 79:269–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Gaurav Sood, and Yphtach Lelkes. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76:405–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Sean J. Westwood. 2015. “Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59:690–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, Dan M., David A. Hoffman, Danieli Evans, Donald Braman, and Jeffrey J. Rachlinski. 2012. “‘They Saw a Protest’: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction.” Stanford Law Review 64:851–906.Google Scholar
Kort, Fred. 1957. “Predicting Supreme Court Decisions Mathematically: A Quantitative Analysis of the ‘Right to Counsel’ Cases.” American Political Science Review 51:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindner, Nicole M., and Brian A. Nosek. 2009. “Alienable Speech: Ideological Variations in the Application of Free-Speech Principles.” Political Psychology 30:67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, Stefanie A., and Frank B. Cross. 2009. Measuring Judicial Activism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, Randall D. 1995. “Separating Partisanship from Party in Judicial Research.” American Political Science Review 89:413–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Charles S. Taber. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, Adam Seth Levine, Jesse O. Menning, and Gisela Sin. 2007. “Were Bush Tax Cut Supporters ‘Simply Ignorant’? A Second Look at Conservatives and Liberals in ‘Homer Gets a Tax Cut.’” Perspectives on Politics 5:773–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., and Kevin M. Quinn. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10:134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T., and Gregory A. Caldeira. 1993. “Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity: Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 87:715–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motyl, Matt, Ravi Iyer, Shigehiro Oishi, Sophie Trawalter, and Brian A. Nosek. 2014. “How Ideological Migration Geographically Segregates Groups.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 51:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Christopher M. 2011. “Ideological Voting in Supreme Court Federalism Cases, 1953–2007.” Justice System Journal 32:206–34.Google Scholar
Pettys, Todd E. 2015. “Free Expression, In-Group Bias, and the Court’s Conservatives: A Critique of the Epstein-Parker-Segal Study.” Buffalo Law Review 63:1–83.Google Scholar
Pritchett, C. Herman. 1941. “Divisions of Opinion among Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1939–1941.” American Political Science Review 35:890–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchett, C. Herman. 1948. The Roosevelt Court: A Study in Judicial Politics and Values. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., Chris Guthrie, and Andrew J. Wistrich. 2011. “Probable Cause, Probability, and Hindsight.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8:72–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., Sheri Lynn Johnson, Andrew J. Wistrich, and Chris Guthrie. 2009. “Does Unconscious Bias Affect Trial Judges?” Notre Dame Law Review 84 (3): 1195–1246.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., Andrew J. Wistrich, and Chris Guthrie. 2015. “Can Judges Make Reliable Numeric Judgments? Distorted Damages and Skewed Sentences.” Indiana Law Journal 90:695–739.Google Scholar
Rand, Dave, Thomas Pfeiffer, Anna Dreber, Rachel W. Sheketoff, Nils C. Wernerfelt, and Yochai Benkler. 2009. “Dynamic Remodeling of In-Group Bias during the 2008 Presidential Election.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:6187–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards, Mark J., and Herbert M. Kritzer. 2002. “Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 96:305–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogowski, Jon C., and Joseph L. Sutherland. 2016. “How Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization.” Political Behavior 38:485–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, David W., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Rokeach, Milton. 1968. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.Google Scholar
Schneider, Daniel M. 2002. “Assessing and Predicting Who Wins Federal Tax Trial Decisions.” Wake Forest Law Review 37:473–530.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon. 1965. The Judicial Mind. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1984. “Predicting Supreme Court Cases Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases, 1962–1981.” American Political Science Review 78:891–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Albert D. Cover. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83:557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal ModelRevisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shayo, Moses. 2009. “A Model of Social Identity with an Application to Political Economy.” American Political Science Review 103:147–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shayo, Moses, and Asaf Zussman. 2011. “Judicial Ingroup Bias in the Shadow of Terrorism.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 126:1447–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., Philip E. Tetlock, James M. Glaser, Donald Philip Green, and Michael Hout. 1989. “Principled Tolerance and the American Mass Public.” British Journal of Political Science 19:25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonnemans, Joep, and Frans van Dijk. 2012. “Errors in Judicial Decisions: Experimental Results.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 28:687–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sood, Avani Mehta. 2015. “Cognitive Cleansing: Experimental Psychology and the Exclusionary Rule.” Georgetown Law Journal 103:1543–1608.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. 1972. An Introduction to Supreme Court Decision Making. Rev. ed. San Francisco: Chandler.Google Scholar
Spamann, Holger. 2015. “Empirical Comparative Law.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 11:131–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiegelhalter, David, Andrew Thomas, Nicky Best, and David J. Lunn. 2004. WinBUGS Version 2.0 Users Manual. http://www.openbugs.net/w/FrontPage.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Kathleen M. 1992. “The Supreme Court 1991 Term—Foreword: The Justices of Rules and Standards.” Harvard Law Review 106:22–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, Charles S., Damon Cann, and Simona Kucsova. 2009. “The Motivated Processing of Political Arguments.” Political Behavior 31:137–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, Charles S., and Milton Lodge. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50:755–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, Henri. 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri, M. G. Billig, R. P. Bundy, and Claude Fament. 1971. “Social Categorization and Intergroup Behaviour.” European Journal of Social Psychology 1:149–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, D. Brian, and Saul M. Kassin. 2012. “Harmless Error Analysis: How Do Judges Respond to Confession Errors?” Law and Human Behavior 36 (2): 151–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wistrich, Andrew J., Chris Guthrie, and Jeffrey J. Rachlinski. 2005. “Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty of Deliberately Disregarding.” University of Pennyslvania Law Review 153:1251–345.Google Scholar
Wistrich, Andrew J., Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, and Chris Guthrie. 2015. “Heart versus Head: Do Judges Follow the Law or Follow Their Feelings?” University of Texas Law Review 93:855–923.Google Scholar