Skip to main content

Gender Bias in Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings


By Christina L. Boyd Department of Political Science, University of Georgia
Paul M. Collins, Jr. Legal Studies Program and Department of Political Science, University of Massachusetts Amherst, and
LoriA. Ringhand School of Law, University of Georgia

Biased and discriminatory behavior toward gender, racial, and ethnic minorities continues to affect many sectors of American society. The 2016 U.S. presidential election provides just the most recent high profile example of this phenomenon. Vigorous debate erupted throughout the campaign about the ways in which gender shaped public perceptions of both candidates, and the extent to which Hilary Clinton was harmed or helped by being the first woman nominated for president by a major political party.

Underlying this public debate is a rich academic literature exploring how gender and race affect the way we select and assess our leaders, including politicians, judges, and lawyers. In “The Role of Nominee Gender and Race at U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings,” we use the U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing Database to study this phenomenon at the Supreme Court confirmation hearings held before the Senate Judiciary Committee, asking whether and how the gender or race of the nominee changes the nature of the confirmation process.

We argue that white and male senators will be more skeptical of the professional competence of minority and female nominees than they are of white and male nominees. We measure this by examining the prevalence of “judicial philosophy” questions directed toward female and minority nominees relative to their male and white counterparts. We use this measure because questions about judicial philosophy are the device used by senators to explore how a future justice will go about the core duty of Supreme Court justices: interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Nominees who use the “wrong” method of interpretation will - in the eyes of the questioning senator - fail at this essential task. Consequently, senators’ implicit biases and lack of relative confidence in female and minority nominees’ professional competence to serve on the Court may result in more aggressive questioning on these nominees’ judicial philosophies.

Figure 1. The Percentage of Judicial Philosophy Questions Nominees Received from Opposite and Same Party Senators, 1967-2010


As shown in Figure 1, this is exactly what happens at the hearings, at least in regard to female nominees. Female nominees being questioned by opposite party senators are asked 10 percent more questions about judicial philosophy than are their male counterparts (after controlling for other factors). And while we found no overall effect on this measure for minority nominees, it is notable that the strongest effect among the female nominees was in the questioning of Justice Sonia Sotomayor – the only nominee in our data to be both a woman and a member of a racial minority group.

Our results reveal that even being among the most accomplished lawyers of their generations does not immunize female Supreme Court nominees from gender bias in the workplace. Whether because the questioning senators are more skeptical of the ability of female nominees to competently perform the core judicial task of constitutional adjudication, or because the senators see it as a winning strategy to cast doubt on their ability to do so, female nominees at their Supreme Court confirmation hearings face a confirmation process that is quite different than that of their male counterparts.


Popular posts from this blog

On writing

By Susan Sterett
Law & Society Review Co-Editor

One thing I know for sure after having co-edited Law and Society Review for almost three years is that just about every college and university would like more publications from faculty members. Many colleges and universities around the world want people to write for peer-reviewed journals, so like other journals, Law and Society Review has been getting an increasing number of submissions. Some journals have big backlogs. Some journals have stopped accepting submissions. Everyone is overwhelmed with content. How can you prepare your paper for LSR? This post will point to a few resources that could help, based in my experience from editing, conversations with other editors, and my conversations at the wonderful 2017 sociolegal studies early career workshop at the University of Cape Town. All have made me rethink how I submit to journals.

A few thoughts, most of which are readily found on the internet. Even so, many people may no…

Law & Society Review is pleased to announce two opportunities for scholars who are from or who write about the Global South. Both opportunities have early January deadlines.

The first opportunity is the Sociolegal Studies Early Career Writing Workshop, March 21-23, 2019, at the University of Cape Town. This intensive workshop, co-sponsored by Law & Society Review, is for a small group of early career scholars from any university in Africa to receive feedback on papers in progress and mentoring on writing/publishing processes. The goal is to help one another toward writing goals and publication. The Workshop will cover travel expenses and accommodation. Applications (including draft paper and letter of reference) are due January 14, 2019. For details, please visit the Early Career Workshop website here. For additional questions, contact pbl-cls@uct.ac.za.

Another opportunity is the Law and Society in Africa conference, April 1-3, 2019, organized by American University Cairo's Law & Society Research Unit. The first Law and Society in Africa Conference, held in South Africa in 2016, was a great success, with more than 100 attendees…

How do text messages complicate contemporary sexual assault adjudication?

By Heather Hlavka and Sameena Mulla 
Department of Social and Cultural Sciences, Marquette University


“There’s no video, no injury. It’s purely one hundred percent ‘he said, she said.’ They had a terrible relationship. They were nasty to each other and they don’t get along well, probably never will. But there is no evidence to support the state’s case, other than their words.” Our article, “’That’s How She Talks’: Animating Text Message Evidence in the Sexual Assault Trial,” begins with these familiar words offered by a defense attorney during a sexual assault trial in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The oft-invoked trope of “he said, she said” in cases of sexual violence suggests that without third-party eye witness testimony or material evidence, sexual assault allegations rest on conflicting reports provided by victims, the accused, and other witnesses. But how do trial attorneys reinvent this trope when the words of the witnesses are preserved as text messages?

Text messages are recorded co…