In 1954 the “Let Robeson Sing” campaign was in full voice, bombarding the U.S. State Department with letters and petitions calling for the reinstatement of Paul Robeson’s passport. President Eisenhower warned against military intervention in Southeast Asia. Before year’s end, he authorized an emergency program to train the South Vietnamese army. The Communist Control Act went into effect, virtually outlawing the Communist party in the United States. Meanwhile, the Senate censured Joseph McCarthy, the nation’s most notorious “red-baiter.” West Germany regained its sovereignty. The first issue ofSports Illustratedappeared. Elvis Presley began his Sun recording sessions. A new nemesis...

In the American constitutional system, the responsibility for protecting minority rights against infringements by political majorities has traditionally fallen on the Supreme Court. Indeed, in outlining his rationale for judicial power inFederalist 78, Alexander Hamilton writes that the judiciary must have the capacity to check legislative encroachments on individual rights; otherwise those rights would be constantly vulnerable to “those ill humours which the arts of designing men sometimes disseminate among the people” (Wills 1982, 397).

By a limited constitution I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority…. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in...

Can the Supreme Court legitimize controversial policies among African Americans? Based upon the logic of Legitimacy Theory, the answer would seem to be a resoundingyes. Legitimacy Theory holds that an institution’s reservoir of good will generates public support for a policy it articulates even in the face of forces that might work against the policy’s acceptance. Institutions with deep reservoirs of loyalty are able to pull constituents’ preferences in their direction when they articulate particular policies and be confident that citizens will abide by their policies even without coercive measures. In contrast, institutions with anemic levels of loyalty are...

The U.S. Supreme Court carefully protects its image as an apolitical guardian of the Constitution. Steeped in tradition and ritual, limiting and rigidly controlling its exposure to the press and the public, the Court perpetuates the myth that it is the sole institution empowered to protect and interpret that sacred text. This is a double-edged sword. On one hand, the Court’s image-protecting silence certainly contributes to its remarkably stable and high levels of abstract mass approval (Marshall 1989; Mondak and Smithey 1997), and this in turn amplifies its relatively greater ability to dress policies in the cloak of legitimacy (see...

As Chapter 2 makes clear, when it comes to black Americans’ political and legal interests, no institution in American government has bored with a larger auger than the Supreme Court. It was instrumental in black Americans’ full realization of their right to vote. Its decisions in the 1950s and 1960s razed state-sanctioned apartheid. And its chamber has been the battleground on which fierce contests over civil rights and affirmative action policies have been waged. Yet despite its substantial impact on racial matters, the Court is in a remarkably weak position when it comes to constructing or “framing” the way in...

Through experimental analyses we have demonstrated the Court’s capacity to shape the public opinion of African Americans. Specifically, the experiments we conducted in Chapter 3 pointed to the Court’s greater legitimizing ability (relative to the federal bureaucracy) among both African Americans and whites. Thus, it seems that the Court, because of its relatively higher levels of institutional credibility, can convince important segments of the American electorate to accept or at least tolerate policies it articulates.

Before we pronounce this question settled, however, we must acknowledge two key points. First, the legitimizing effect we have found for the Court is in...

In the preceding chapters we have demonstrated that the U.S. Supreme Court is more capable than other political institutions of dressing controversial policies in the cloak of legitimacy (see also Gibson 1989; Hoekstra 1995; Hoekstra and Segal 1996; Mondak 1990, 1991, 1992). Moreover, as the empirical results presented in Chapter 6 indicate, the basis of this signal legitimizing capacity—this power to affect public opinion—is the public’s opinion of the Court itself. There is nothing particularly novel here. Indeed, it is a hoary practice in studies of public opinion and the Supreme Court to quote Alexander Hamilton’s maxim that...

A basic question has motivated this analysis: is the Supreme Court able to legitimize policies among African Americans? Based upon the evidence presented in the foregoing chapters, the simple answer is yes. Within that pithy declaration, however, resides a complex mix of antecedent conditions, relative effects, and moderating forces.

That black Americans enjoy a special historical relationship with the Supreme Court is well established. In Chapter 2 we reviewed that historical legacy, specifically those actions of the Court that reshaped race relations in the United States. From the inception of the NAACP in 1909, black leaders pursued a strategy of...