Devolving Dobbs: Abortion Politics and the Legitimacy of State High Courts

Scholars have come to understand that the state supreme courts play a vital role in American politics, a conclusion driven home by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling that abortion rights must be fought out in the individual states. At the same time, little research has ever focused on how the mass publics in the states view their high courts, and especially on whether people are willing to extend those institutions legitimacy. Our purpose in this article is to first introduce new measures of the institutional legitimacy of the 50-state supreme courts (based on representative samples in each state) as of the close of 2023. After validating the measure, we present the results of 50 experiments (one in each state) concerning how an abortion-rights ruling, whether liked or disliked, might affect attitudes toward the state high courts. Informed by a theory of attitude updating, we find that specific support attitudes do get altered, but diffuse support attitudes do not. Finally, we consider the question of how the Dobbs context might be replicated in the American states, concluding that the state high courts are unlikely to make counter-majoritarian rulings.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Political Research Quarterly
Published
2025-05-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129251345122
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
31.97
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Devolving Dobbs: Abortion Politics and the Legitimacy of State High Courts

James L. Gibson, Michael J. K. Nelson
2 citations
Political Research Quarterly
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
31.97
article

Devolving Dobbs: Abortion Politics and the Legitimacy of State High Courts

James L. Gibson, Michael J. K. Nelson
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Scholars have come to understand that the state supreme courts play a vital role in American politics, a conclusion driven home by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling that abortion rights must be fought out in the individual states. At the same time, little research has ever focused on how the mass publics in the states view their high courts, and especially on whether people are willing to extend those institutions legitimacy. Our purpose in this article is to first introduce new measures of the institutional legitimacy of the 50-state supreme courts (based on representative samples in each state) as of the close of 2023. After validating the measure, we present the results of 50 experiments (one in each state) concerning how an abortion-rights ruling, whether liked or disliked, might affect attitudes toward the state high courts. Informed by a theory of attitude updating, we find that specific support attitudes do get altered, but diffuse support attitudes do not. Finally, we consider the question of how the Dobbs context might be replicated in the American states, concluding that the state high courts are unlikely to make counter-majoritarian rulings.

Political Research QuarterlyVol. 78(3)
Pennsylvania State University (US), Washington University in St. Louis (US), Stellenbosch University (ZA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
31.97
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.