You Better Shop Around: Litigant Characteristics and Supreme Court Support

Groups seeking to advance rights have often appealed to the Supreme Court. But the justices are hesitant to engage with such cases, especially when it means siding with a traditionally unpopular group. Attorneys consequently look to make these cases more appealing. One way of doing this is identifying counter-stereotypical litigants, or litigants whose identities do not align with the expected beneficiaries of a decision. Counter-stereotypical litigants should change the conversation about who benefits from a rights-affirming decision and increase support for the Court making that decision. Using survey experiments, we find that counter-stereotypical litigants can make a difference but not universally. Our results show that Black male litigants increase support for overturning affirmative action, while Asian American men decrease it. We also find that White female litigants draw broad support for upholding gun rights. These results suggest that attorneys must carefully consider identity politics when seeking to increase decision support.