Do Americans Understand the Judicial Philosophies They Endorse? Evidence From Mass and Elite Surveys

Although members of the mass public express support for judicial philosophies--such as originalism--and evaluate nominees and decisions accordingly, it remains unclear whether they apply these philosophies in a coherent and consistent manner. In general, the public rarely employs overarching belief systems when making political judgments. Thus, are individuals philosophically constrained in their thinking about the judiciary? To answer this, we assess philosophical constraint among the mass public and compare it to a relevant baseline: legal professionals. Using two surveys—the 2022 Cooperative Election Study (CES) and a 2025 Prolific sample of legal professionals—we evaluate constraint through multiple metrics, including attitude consistency. Our findings suggest that judicial philosophy functions as an organizing framework for only a small subset of individuals, primarily those with higher levels of political sophistication or legal training. There is a disconnect between philosophy-based support and coherence in one’s understanding of that philosophy.