De-Conferring Judicial Legitimacy

Scholars have devoted considerable attention to the U.S. Supreme Court's legitimacy-conferring capacity, arguing that the Court attaches some of its legitimacy to its rulings, leading people to accept those decisions. Missing from earlier research is recognition that the U.S. is a federal legal system that often pits state courts against the U.S. Supreme Court. Moreover, state courts have legitimacy of their own that may inoculate the state high court from attacks from the federal court. Examining Caperton v. Massey, a ruling against the West Virginia Supreme Court and using a panel survey of West Virginia residents, we find that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling harmed the state court's support among its constituents, but the state court's legitimacy also protected it from the U.S. Court's ruling. These findings suggest that a new approach to understanding legal federalism is required, one that focuses on the relative legitimacy of the institutions involved