🔎 Why Litigant Identity Matters

Groups seeking to advance rights often appeal to the Supreme Court, but justices can be hesitant to engage—especially when a favorable ruling appears to benefit a traditionally unpopular group. Attorneys therefore look for ways to make such cases more appealing. One strategy is to identify counter-stereotypical litigants: parties whose identities do not match the expected beneficiaries of a decision. Such litigants can shift the conversation about who would benefit from a rights-affirming ruling and potentially increase public support for the Court taking that position.

🧭 How Support Was Tested

• Method: Survey experiments that vary litigant identity to measure how those identities change support for Supreme Court decisions.
• Focus: Public reactions to hypothetical cases involving contested issues (examples include affirmative action and gun rights).

📈 Key Findings

• Counter-stereotypical litigants can alter support for Court decisions, but effects are not uniform across identities or issues.
• For affirmative action: Black male litigants increased support for overturning affirmative action, while Asian American male litigants reduced support for overturning it.
• For gun rights: White female litigants drew broad support for upholding gun rights.
• Overall, litigant identity matters in predictable and surprising ways depending on the issue and the social stereotypes tied to identities.

⚖️ Why It Matters

• Attorneys crafting Supreme Court litigation should carefully weigh identity politics when selecting or presenting litigants: the identity of a plaintiff or defendant can meaningfully change public backing for a Court decision.
• The results highlight the strategic use—and limits—of counter-stereotypical litigants for shaping the political and public environment around high-stakes constitutional cases.