# Ideological Cues, Partisanship, and Prejudice Against LGBTQ Judges

## TL;DR

This study finds that Americans from both political parties are less likely to support LGBTQ nominees for the Supreme Court, even when their ideology aligns with the voters.

## Contribution

The paper introduces a conjoint experiment to disentangle prejudice against LGBTQ nominees from ideological alignment.

## Key findings

- Both Democrats and Republicans penalize LGBTQ nominees, contrary to previous assumptions about Democratic support.
- Transgender nominees face a 14 percentage point penalty, while gay or lesbian nominees face an 8 percentage point penalty.
- Ideological alignment does not lead to genuine inclusivity for LGBTQ individuals in judicial nominations.

## Abstract

How does the gender and sexual identity of a prospective judge shape public support for their nomination? We build upon recent scholarship on instrumental inclusivity and argue that, after accounting for nominee ideology, Americans of all partisan stripes will penalize LGBTQ nominees. Using a conjoint experiment, we randomly vary a prospective Biden US Supreme Court nominee’s gender and sexual identity. Crucially, we also randomize the nominee’s ideology, enabling us to disentangle LGBTQ identity from the ideological signal it sends and differentiate between genuine and instrumental support for LGBTQ nominees. Contrary to recent findings suggesting that Democrats reward minority judges, we find that respondents from both parties penalize LGBTQ nominees. The magnitude of these effects—roughly 14 percentage points for transgender nominees and 8 percentage points for gay or lesbian nominees—is considerable and second only to shared partisanship. Our study underscores that ideological alignment does not necessarily foster genuine inclusivity for LGBTQ individuals and highlights the persistent challenges of representation for marginalized groups in an era of polarized judicial nominations.