Reevaluating ideological asymmetries in specific support for the Supreme Court

Recent studies show the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center undermined multiple forms of support for the Supreme Court. These findings are in tension with existing work on the ideological structure of specific support of the Supreme Court, which finds more tolerance for ideological disagreement among liberals than among conservatives. In this note, we replicate and extend Haglin et al. (2021), whose analysis ends in 2018. We find that asymmetries in the association between Supreme Court approval and Americans’ ideological disagreement with the Court have changed substantially and abruptly, depressing aggregate Supreme Court approval. However, this break in the structure of Supreme Court approval occurred in the year preceding Dobbs . These results indicate the roots of Americans’ turn against the Supreme Court run deeper than Dobbs and suggest a startling erosion in judicial legitimacy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Research & Politics
Published
2025-07-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680251355253
Primary Topic
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reevaluating ideological asymmetries in specific support for the Supreme Court

Alison Higgins Merrill, Soren Jordan, Kathryn Haglin, Joseph Daniel Ura
Research & Politics
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
article

Reevaluating ideological asymmetries in specific support for the Supreme Court

Alison Higgins Merrill, Soren Jordan, Kathryn Haglin, Joseph Daniel Ura
article en

Abstract

Recent studies show the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center undermined multiple forms of support for the Supreme Court. These findings are in tension with existing work on the ideological structure of specific support of the Supreme Court, which finds more tolerance for ideological disagreement among liberals than among conservatives. In this note, we replicate and extend Haglin et al. (2021), whose analysis ends in 2018. We find that asymmetries in the association between Supreme Court approval and Americans’ ideological disagreement with the Court have changed substantially and abruptly, depressing aggregate Supreme Court approval. However, this break in the structure of Supreme Court approval occurred in the year preceding Dobbs . These results indicate the roots of Americans’ turn against the Supreme Court run deeper than Dobbs and suggest a startling erosion in judicial legitimacy.

Research & PoliticsVol. 12(3)
Susquehanna University (US), Mitchell Institute (US), University of Minnesota, Duluth (US), Clemson University (US), Texas A&M University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
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.

Reevaluating ideological asymmetries in specific support for the Supreme Court — Alison Higgins Merrill, Soren Jordan, et al. · Research & Politics (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS