Connecting Supreme Court Decisions, Media Coverage, and Public Opinion: The Case of Lawrence v. Texas

Authors

  • Mahalley D. Allen
  • Donald P. Haider-Markel

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2006.27.0.209-230

Abstract

Many scholars have examined the relationship between public opinion and the U.S. Supreme Court, but most researchers have often failed to take into account the fact that the press mediates this relationship. Due to the public’s lack of independent knowledge about Supreme Court decisions, the media has the potential to play an influential role in the communication and interpretation of Supreme Court decisions. In this article, we examine the relationship between the Supreme Court, the media, and public opinion. First, we examine whether increased public tolerance on gay and lesbian issues has resulted in increased media coverage of gay-related cases before the Supreme Court. Second, we examine how media coverage of the Court’s 2003 decision to strike down state sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas may have been associated with decreased public support for gay and lesbian civil rights. Our analysis suggests that increased support for gay and lesbian civil rights may have lead to increased media attention to the Lawrence case and that the tone of this coverage may have subsequently resulted in an observed decrease in support for gay and lesbian civil rights following the Court’s decision. We also suggest that the release of a highly critical dissenting opinion by the Court in the case may have encouraged negative media coverage and the resulting shift in public opinion. Our research has broad implications for media coverage of Supreme Court decisions.

References

Baumgartner, Frank. R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Behr, Roy L., and Shanto Iyengar. 1985. Television News, Real-World Cues, and Changes in the Public Agenda. Public Opinion Quarterly 49:38-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/268900

Biskupic, Thomas. 2003. Decision Represents an Enormous Turn in the Law. USA Today, June 27, p. 5A.

Brewer, Paul R. 2003. The Shifting Foundations of Public Opinion about Gay Rights. Journal of Politics 65:1208-1220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00133

Caldeira, Gregory A. 1987. Public Opinion and the U.S. Supreme Court: FDR's Court-Packing Plan. American Political Science Review 81:1139-1153. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1962582

Clawson, Rosalee A., Elizabeth R. Kegler, and Eric N. Waltenburg. 2001. The Legitimacy-Conferring Authority of the U.S. Supreme Court: An Experimental Design. American Politics Research 29:566-591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X01029006002

Clawson, Rosalee A., and Eric N. Waltenburg. 2003. Support for a Supreme Court Affirmative Action Decision: A Story in Black and White. American Politics Research 31:251-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X03251197

Clawson, Rosalee A., H.C. Strine IV, and Eric. N. Waltenburg. 2003. Framing Supreme Court Decisions: The Mainstream versus the Black Press. Journal of Black Studies 33:784-800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021934703033006004

Craig, Stephen C., Michael D. Martinez, James G. Kane, and Jason Gainous. 2005. Core Values, Value Conflict, and Citizens' Ambivalence about Gay Rights. Political Research Quarterly 58:5-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800101 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3595591

Davis, Richard. 1994. Decisions and Images: The Supreme Court and the Press. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Davis, Richard, and Vincent James Strickler. 2000. The Invisible Dance: The Supreme Court and the Press. Perspectives on Political Science 29:85-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10457090009600698

Egan, Patrick J., and Kenneth Sherrill. 2005. Neither an In-Law nor an Outlaw Be: Trends in Americans' Attitudes Toward Gay People. Public Opinion Pros (February), online http://www.publicopinionpros.com/.

Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey Segal. 2000. Measuring Issue Salience. American Journal of Political Science 44:66-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2669293

Franklin, Charles H., and Liane C. Kosaki. 1989. Republican Schoolmaster: The U.S. Supreme Court, Public Opinion, and Abortion. American Political Science Review 83:751-771. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1962059

Franklin, Charles H., and Liane C. Kosaki. 1995. Media Knowledge and Public Evaluations of the Supreme Court. Pp. 352-375 in Contemplating Courts, ed. Lee Epstein. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483329901.n15

Haider-Markel, Donald P. 2002. Lesbian and Gay Politics in the States: Interest Groups, Electoral Politics, and Public Policy. Pp. 290-346 in The Politics of Gay Rights, eds. Rimmerman et al. New York: Chatham House.

Haider-Markel, Donald P., and Mark R. Joslyn. 2005. Attributions and the Regulation of Marriage: Considering the Parallels Between Race and Homosexuality. P.S.: Political Science & Politics. 38:233-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1049096505056362

Haider-Markel, Donald P., Mahalley D. Allen, and Morgen Johansen. 2006. Understanding Variations in Media Coverage of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions: Comparing Media Outlets in their Coverage of Lawrence v. Texas. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 11:64-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1081180X05286065

Hoekstra, Valerie. 2000. The Supreme Court and Local Public Opinion. American Political Science Review 94:89-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2586382

Hoekstra, Valerie. 2003. Public Reaction to Supreme Court Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509827

Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226388533.001.0001

Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald R. Kinder. 1987. News That Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jeon, Yongjoo, and Donald P. Haider-Markel. 2001. Tracing Issue Definition and Policy Change: An Analysis of Disability Issue Images and Policy Response. Policy Studies Journal 29:215-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2001.tb02087.x

Johnson, Timothy R. and Andrew D. Martin. 1998. The Public's Conditional Response to Supreme Court Decisions. American Political Science Review 92:299-309. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2585665

Joslyn, Mark R., and Donald P. Haider-Markel. 2000. Guns in the Ballot Box: Information, Groups, and Opinion in Ballot Initiative Campaigns. American Politics Quarterly 28:355-378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X00028003004

Kritzer, Herbert M. 2001. The Impact of Bush v. Gore on Public Perceptions and Knowledge of the Supreme Court. Judicature 85:32-38.

Lash, Steve. 2003. Contentious, Emotional Supreme Court Session. Austin-American Statesman, June 29, p. H4.

Lewis, Gregory, and Rogers, Marc. 1999. Does the Public Support Equal Employment Rights for Gays and Lesbians? Pp. 118-145 in Gays and Lesbians in the Democratic Process, eds. Ellen D. B. Riggle and Barry L. Tadlock. New York: Columbia University Press.

Menashe, Claudia L., and Siegel Michael. 1998. The power of a frame: an analysis of newspaper coverage of tobacco issues—United States, 1985-1996. Journal of Health Communication 3:307-325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/108107398127139

Moore, Jennifer. 2004. Modest Rebound in Public Acceptance of Homosexuals. The Gallup Organization. Retrieved May 20, 2004, from http://www.gallup.com.

Nelson Thomas E., Rosalee A. Clawson, and Zoe M. Oxley. 1997. Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and its Effect on Tolerance. American Political Science Review 91:567-583. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2952075

Nelson, Thomas E., and Zoe M. Oxley. 1999. Issue Framing Effects on Belief Importance and Opinion. Journal of Politics 61:1040-1067. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2647553

Newport, Frank. 2003. Public Shifts to More Conservative Stance on Gay Rights. The Gallup Organization. Retrieved July 30, 2003, from http://www.gallup.com.

Scherer, Nancy. 2003. The Judicial Confirmation Process: Mobilizing Elites, Mobilizing Masses. Judicature 86:240-250.

Shah, Dhavan V., Mark D. Watts, David Domke, David P. Fan, and Michael Fibison. 1999. News Coverage, Economic Cues, and the Public's Presidential Preferences: 1948-1996. Journal of Politics 61:914-943. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2647548

Slotnick, Elliot E., and Jennifer A. Segal. 1998. Television News and the Supreme Court: All the News That's Fit to Air? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625565

Stoutenborough, James W., Donald P. Haider-Markel, and Mahalley D. Allen. 2006. Reassessing the Impact of Supreme Court Decisions on Public Opinion: Gay Civil Rights Cases. Political Research Quarterly 59:419-433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900310

Wlezien, Christopher B., and Malcolm L. Goggin. 1993. The Courts, Interest Groups, and Public Opinion about Abortion. Political Behavior 15:381-405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00992104

Wood, Peter B., and John P. Bartkowski. 2004. Attribution Style and Public Policy Attitudes Toward Gay Rights. Social Science Quarterly 85:58-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.08501005.x

Downloads

Published

2006-11-01

Issue

Vol. 27: Fall 2006

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.