The Minimal, Parallel Modern Effect of Courts on Public Opinion: Evidence from 44 Years of Experiments

Abstract: In an era of polarized judiciaries, re-evaluating the role of courts in shaping public opinion is vital. This study meta-analyses 114 effects from 21 experiments (1981-2025, N=31,523). I find that as average statistical power has risen dramatically over time, experimental estimates of court influence have fallen dramatically, with average effects of just 0.06 standard deviations post-Citizen’s-United. These effects, when they appear, are non-heterogeneous by partisanship, moving Democrats and Republicans in the same direction. These minimal, parallel effects are confined mostly to narrow specific variables, especially specific support and social beliefs. How the court’s decisions are framed in the media is, on average, more consequential for opinion formation than the court decision itself. Encouragingly, I find no evidence of publication bias, overall or in any decade. This paper increases understanding of court influence on public opinion along several dimensions while outlining important directions for future research.