Media Release  

Decade-long study shows Supreme Court is now further to the ideological right than most Americans

photo from outside Supreme Court building, showing most of the columns, and the statue to the right of front

Cambridge, MA—As the Supreme Court is poised to hand down perhaps its most consequential raft of decisions in a generation, a new study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that since 2020, the court has become much more conservative than the American public at large. Leveraging a decade-long set of surveys that ask Americans about the exact issues before the court, Stephen Jessee from the University of Texas at Austin, Neil Malhotra from the Stanford Graduate School of Business, and Harvard Kennedy School’s Maya Sen demonstrate that the Supreme Court is now ideologically further to the right than roughly three quarters of Americans.

The authors’ research illustrates how new appointments over the last decade have corresponded with rightward shifts in the court’s ideology. The 2018 replacement of moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy with the more conservative Brett Kavanaugh shifted the court’s politics strongly to the right. “In 2010, with Kennedy as the median, the court’s rulings put it in an ideological middle ground roughly halfway between Republicans and Democrats. In fact, the estimated ideological position of the court with Kennedy as the median falls almost exactly at the position of the average American.”

The October 2020 appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg resulted in the court’s ideology moving even further to the right, according to the authors. Though many believe that Chief Justice Roberts held the court’s moderate center together following Justice Kennedy’s retirement, Justice Barrett’s appointment signaled the end of the court’s centrism by increasing the size of the conservative voting bloc from 5 to 6 (out of 9). This has resulted in rulings that are more conservative than what most Americans prefer. “Indeed, by the time of our 2021 survey, the following April, the court is estimated to be significantly more conservative than the average American,” the authors write.

This sudden rightward shift, which now finds Justice Brett Kavanaugh occupying the court’s median ideological position, has led much of the public to underestimate the court’s conservative tilt. Democrats in particular, according to the survey data compiled by the authors, are “particularly likely to consistently underestimate the court’s conservative lean.” This underestimation of the court’s sharp turn to the right has significant consequences for the public’s support for Supreme Court reforms, such as term limits or the appointment of additional justices. “The fact that so many people currently underestimate how conservative the court is implies that support for proposed changes to the court may be weaker than it would be if people knew with greater accuracy the court’s conservative nature.”

About the Ash Center

The Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard Kennedy School advances excellence in governance and strengthens democratic institutions worldwide. Through its research, education, international programs, and government innovations awards, the Center fosters creative and effective government problem solving and serves as a catalyst for addressing many of the most pressing needs of the world’s citizens.

Contact

Daniel Harsha
Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation
Daniel_Harsha@hks.harvard.edu
Sarah Grucza
Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation
Sarah_Grucza@hks.harvard.edu

Related Resources

Contesting repression in divided democracies: Can counternarratives reduce support for police violence?
An image of 4 police officer shields.

Article

Contesting repression in divided democracies: Can counternarratives reduce support for police violence?

A new article in the American Journal of Political Science by Yanilda María González, Ford Foundation Associate Professor of Public Policy and Ash Center affiliate, and co-author, examines public attitudes towards police violence in Brazil. The authors find that while police discourse can increase public endorsement of violence, counternarratives from marginalized victims can be effective in reducing citizen support for repressive policing.

Reframing Efficiency: How Public Deliberation Strengthens Public Health Policy
A blue, green, and orange crowd of abstract figures with hospital ceiling lights in the background.

Article

Reframing Efficiency: How Public Deliberation Strengthens Public Health Policy

In a recent essay for the American Journal of Public Health, Aditya S. Pawar, Democracy Visiting Fellow; Jon Alexander, former Non-resident Democracy Fellow; Archon Fung, Director of the Ash Center; and co-authors examine how public deliberation and representative engagement can shape more efficient and reliable public health policy.

Terms of Engagement – How to Be a Dissident in an Age of Fear
Episode 49 graphic.

Podcast

Terms of Engagement – How to Be a Dissident in an Age of Fear

What does it take to stand up for what you believe in when your personal safety, security and even liberty are at stake? Ami Fields-Meyer, a political strategist and former senior policy advisor in the Biden-Harris White House, joins Terms of Engagement hosts Archon Fung and Stephen Richer to speak about speaking out in tumultuous times.