The U.S. Supreme Court, an institution designed to stand above partisan politics, has seen a dramatic shift in its news media coverage, particularly since 2016. While the Court has always weighed in on highly controversial issues, recent research indicates a stark increase in the political framing of its decisions and appointments. This change, largely driven by the events following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, has fundamentally altered public perception of the Court, leading to record-low approval ratings.
From Legal Principles to Political Frames
For decades, news media outlets largely portrayed the Supreme Court as a nonpolitical institution, with its decisions based almost entirely on legal principles rather than ideological preferences. This approach helped foster public goodwill and support for the Court. For instance, in the highly contentious Bush v. Gore ruling in 2000, which effectively decided a presidential election, major newspapers like The New York Times avoided using overtly political terms such as “Democrat,” “Republican,” “liberal,” or “conservative” in their coverage. They focused on the justices’ names and votes, not their appointing president’s party or ideological leanings.
However, this pattern has undergone a profound transformation. Research analysing articles referencing the Supreme Court in five major newspapers from 1980 to 2023 reveals that the average number of “political frames” per article has tripled. Contemporary coverage of the Supreme Court now frequently gives the impression that it is as political as Congress or the presidency.
The Scalia Vacancy: A Turning Point
The abrupt and lasting change in newspaper coverage can be precisely traced to February 2016, following the unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia, a conservative icon, left a vacancy that could have significantly shifted the Court’s ideological balance. The political battle over his successor was unprecedented: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland, insisting that the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president. Republican candidate Donald Trump capitalised on this, vowing to appoint a conservative justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade, effectively making the Court and the 2016 election inseparable.
This event immediately impacted media framing. The day before Scalia’s death, a typical article referencing the Court used 3.22 political frames; the day after, that number jumped to 10.48. Annual averages show a similar spike, from 3.50 political frames per article in 2015 to 5.30 in 2016. Statistical analyses consistently pinpoint February 2016 as the moment newspapers shifted to significantly higher levels of political framing for the Court, a trend that has remained elevated through 2023.
Impact on Public Perception and Trust
The way news stories frame an issue significantly shapes public perception. When articles portray a court decision as “originalist,” readers might perceive the Court as operating on legalistic grounds. However, framing a decision as “conservative” or “liberal” leads readers to view the Court as ideological. Studies indicate that when people read articles about Supreme Court decisions using political frames, public approval of the Court declines. This is because most people desire a legal institution, not a political one. Consequently, polls today show the Court grappling with precariously low public support.
While journalists are not solely responsible for this decline in public trust, their accurate reporting of the Court’s increasingly ideological behaviour contributes to it. Before President Trump’s three appointments, the Court was known for its relative balance, with decisions sometimes leaning liberal and other times conservative. For example, in June 2013, the Court provided protections for same-sex marriages but two days prior, struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act—a balance expected from a legal institution. Today, the Court’s decisions on most salient issues consistently support conservative policies, reinforcing the perception of an ideologically driven bench. Given the media’s willingness to emphasise the Court’s politics and the justices’ ideologically consistent rulings on critical issues, it is unlikely that news media will soon retreat from political framing, compelling the Court to adapt to its diminished public approval.
