Select Ongoing Projects
"Evaluating Supreme Court Legitimacy in an Era of Court Reform."
"Sentencing Decisions and Judicial Legitimacy"
"Use of the Shadow Docket Does Not Affect Supreme Court Legitimacy" (Coauthored with Logan Strother)
This page will show you my published work as well as a selection of current, ongoing projects. Projects that are currently under review have been removed from this website during the review process, though they are still available on my C.V. and I would be happy to share them in an email. Many of these projects are with incredible coauthors, and I would encourage you to check them out, too! If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Carrington, Nathan T., Thomas M. Keck, and Claire Sigsworth. Forthcoming. "Minority Rights, Governing Regimes, or Secular Elites: Who Benefits from the Protection of Religious and Anti-Religious Speech by the U.S. Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights?" Journal of Law and Courts.
This paper draws on new data regarding judicial decisions involving religious and anti-religious expression to map the political beneficiaries of judicial empowerment. In particular, the paper assesses the extent to which free expression decisions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have favored claimants who are religious majorities, religious minorities, or secular elites. We find the U.S. doctrine relatively more libertarian and the ECtHR doctrine relatively more secularist, but that both bodies of case law extend regular and substantial rights protection to religious minorities. [Replication material] [Download the paper]
Increasingly salient in democratic politics are the divides among political parties regarding how they mobilize support between ethnic majorities and minorities. Why, then, do some members of a minority group support political parties seemingly antithetical to the interests of minority groups? We draw on group conflict theory to suggest that a partial explanation rests on perceived competition within minority groups. We test this theory by focusing on Republican Party support among Asian Americans in the United States. Based on two representative surveys and an original survey experiment of Asian Americans, we demonstrate that perceived competition among racial minority groups has a significant effect on the partisanship of Asian Americans, pushing them toward the Republican Party. Our findings provide critical implications on how race affects politics in democracies with increasingly diversified ethnic minority groups. [Download the paper]
Although legitimacy is crucial for courts’ efficacy, the sources identified as legitimizing domestic institutions are weaker or absent altogether for international institutions. We use an original, preregistered, nationally representative survey experiment to show that perceived home-state interest strongly affects the legitimacy afforded by UK citizens to the International Criminal Court. Importantly, this relationship is moderated by nationalism. Our findings have implications for state actors in a position to act vis-á-vis international courts, elites seeking to alter opinions towards courts, and courts themselves weighing possible institutional costs of acting against noncompliant states. [Download the paper]
The belief that removing Confederate icons from public spaces violates free expression rights occasionally makes its way into the national discourse. Because rights-based claims represent ostensibly race-neutral justification for supporting Confederate symbols, we field an original, nationally representative survey to ascertain how pervasive this belief is among the general public, as well as what motivates it. We find that while this is a decidedly minority position, this view is strongly correlated with racial attitudes. Our findings highlight an important form of popular constitutionalism and have implications for policymakers and others who might view rights-based claims as inherently race neutral.