Chapter 3 describes in detail the data sources and research designs used throughout the book, including observational data sources, experiments on national samples of American citizens, and panel surveys tracking the same people over time. It also summarizes aggregate public opinion on key variables through time, including approval, confidence, trust, procedural perceptions, and broadly targeted and narrowly targeted Court-curbing. The chapter concludes that the Court’s “reservoir of goodwill” within the American public is not as deep or wide as many scholars suggest.

Chapter 8 concludes with a summary and synthesis of the book’s findings. It discusses the book’s implications for theories of public support for courts, and situates the book within the broader literature on public opinion and political institutions. The chapter anticipates and responds to criticisms of the book’s theoretical and empirical sections, and explores broader implications for the Court’s independence and power within the American political system.

Chapter 1 sets the scholarly and popular context for explaining how citizens evaluate the United States Supreme Court. It conceptualizes the core outcome of interest throughout the book: public support for Court-curbing, or alterations to the Supreme Court’s powers, structures, and institutional arrangements. We compare this concept to judicial independence and judicial power, and we distinguish it from institutional legitimacy. Chapter 1 also makes important connections to the institutions literature, explaining how a politicized foundation to Court-curbing represents a constraint on judicial independence. We characterize core debates in the scholarly literature centering on “policy (or outcome) versus process.” Policy-based perspectives posit that citizen agreement or disagreement with the Court’s rulings or policy direction will influence support for Court-curbing. Process-based perspectives suggest that non-policy factors such as democratic values, perceptions that the Court is fair and impartial (as opposed to politicized), and knowledge and awareness (via a “positivity bias”) all serve to enhance institutional support for the Court.