Project and content management for Contemporary Authors volumes
WORK TITLE: The Limits of Legitimacy
WORK NOTES:
PSEUDONYM(S):
BIRTHDATE:
WEBSITE: http://www.michaelzilis.com/
CITY: Lexington
STATE: KY
COUNTRY:
NATIONALITY:
https://polisci.as.uky.edu/users/mazi223 * https://polisci.as.uky.edu/sites/default/files/cv/Curriculum%20Vitae_2.pdf
RESEARCHER NOTES:
PERSONAL
Male.
EDUCATION:Miami University, B.A., 2007; University of Michigan, Ph.D., 2013.
ADDRESS
CAREER
Political scientist, educator, and writer. DePaul University, Chicago, IL, adjunct professor of political science, 2014-15; University of Kentucky, Lexington, assistant professor of political science, 2015–. Also served as a research assistant and research advisor at the University of Michigan’s Department of Political Science, 2005-2012; internal at the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, Cleveland, OH, 2006. Served as a tutor and tutor instructor material developer for various organizations, including Walter L. Gross Jr. Family Student-Athlete Development Center, Miami, FL, 2006-2007.
MEMBER:American Political Science Association, Midwest Political Science Association.
Recipient of grants and fellowships, including a Gerald R. Ford Fellowship, 2012-13.
WRITINGS
Contributor to professional journals, including Journal of Law and Courts.
SIDELIGHTS
Michael A. Zilis is a political scientist whose research focuses on the United States Supreme Court. His primary area of interest is the popular attitudes toward and media coverage of the Supreme Court, as well as judicial decision making and the court’s place in a separation of powers system. Zillia’s dissertation, “I Respectfully Dissent: Linking Judicial Behavior, Public Responses, and Media Coverage in the Study of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions,” was nominated for the American Political Science Association’s Corwin Award for the best dissertation in the field of public law. His research also spans a variety of aspects concerning public law and judicial politics, as well as research on inter-institutional politics and court-curbing attempts undertaken by Congress.
In his first book, The Limits of Legitimacy: Dissenting Opinions, Media Coverage, and Public Responses to Supreme Court Decisions, Zilis examines how negative media coverage of landmark rulings by the Supreme Court affects pubic support for these ruling. Furthermore, according to Zilis, this negative coverage, which includes reporters oversimplifying the case and dramatizing the complex legal issues by dramatizing differences among the justices, makes the public skeptical and hinders the justices’s ability to persuade the public. The public controversy that results occurs even though research has shown that the majority of Americans do agree that the Supreme Court is a legitimate institution with an important role to play in the government.
Zilis writes in The Limits of Legitimacy: “To understand popular responses to high-profile Supreme Court rulings, consider first the unique standing of the institution. Americans view the Court as inherently legitimate—trustworthy, unbiased, and worthy of protection from politicized interference.” Zilis goes on to note that, in comparison to other political institutions in the United States, “the Court enjoys significant popular support, adding: “This fact leads to a question: Might the institution, as a credible source with a well of diffuse support, use its decisions to increase public approval of controversial policies? This question hints at intriguing possibilities for consensus building in a polarized society.”
In the book’s introductory chapter, Zilis examines whether or not high-profile Supreme Court decisions shape public opinion and the potential for the justices and the court to shape opinion. Zillis next presents a chapter looking at the backlash the Supreme Court has faced from the public. From this point on the book is broken up into two parts. The first part examines the relationship between the court and the press. He covers issues such as how the national medial covers the court and depictions of court decisions on cable news. This section includes a discussion of how differences in voting outcomes on the court influence press coverage, especially in relation to both the majority written opinion of the court and the dissenting written opinion, if there is one. Also addressed is how the national news covers rulings and presents evidence that the the press presents dissensual rulings, that is, rulings in which major disagreements occur among the judges, in a more unfavorable terms. He argues the greater the dissensus in a case the more likely the media will portray the decision as being activist, thus calling into question the ruling legitimacy.
The second part of the book draws from the findings Zilis presents in the first part to examine in more depth the public responses to media reports on the courts and its decisions. Zilis begins by providing a framework in which to evaluate the influence of media coverage on the court’s decision. The book then explores how even small changes in the type of coverage given to a decision can greatly impact public opinion. Zilis also delves into the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as “Obamacare,” and the public’s response to the ruling. He examines over time the public response to the act and the Supreme Court decision upholding it and the role the media played in this response.
Zilis “brings a new perspective on the Supreme Court that will be refreshing to new analysts and veteran court scholars alike,” wrote Choice contributor S.B. Lichtman. J.M. Keller, also writing in Choice, remarked: “With data and models throughout, this is a great resource for students of journalism, political science, and rhetoric.”
BIOCRIT
BOOKS
Zilis, Michael A., The Limits of Legitimacy: Dissenting Opinions, Media Coverage, and Public Responses to Supreme Court Decisions, University of Michigan Press (Ann Arbor, MI), 2015.
PERIODICALS
Choice, April, 2016. J.M. Keller, review of The Limits of Legitimacy, p. 1243; May, 2016, S.B. Lichtman, review of The Limits of Legitimacy, p. 1400.
ONLINE
Michael A. Zilis Home Page, http://www.michaelzilis.com (April 3, 2017).
University of Kentucky Political Science Web site, https://polisci.as.uky.edu/ (April 3, 2017), author faculty profile and CV.*
Michael A. ZilisCurriculum VitaeUpdated September2015michael.zilis@uky.edu1651 Patterson Office Towerwww.michaelzilis.comLexington, KY 40506 (859) 257-7030Academic PositionsAssistant Professor of Political Science, University of Kentucky2015-presentAdjunct Professor of Political Science, DePaul University2014-2015EducationThe University of MichiganPh.D. Political Science2013Fields: American Politics, Statistical and Experimental Methods (secondary), Psychology (cognate)Dissertation:“I Respectfully Dissent: Linking Judicial Voting Behavior, Media Coverage, and Public Responses in the Study of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions”Committee: Nancy Burns (oair), Charles Shipan, Ted Brader, Phoebe EllsworthAwards: Nominated for the Edward S. Corwin Award for Best Doctoral Dissertation in the field of Public Law in 2012 and 2013Miami UniversityBachelor of Arts2007Fields: Political Science, History, Mathematics (minor)Honors: summa cum laude, University Honors with Distinction, Honors in MajorPublicationsZilis, Michael A.2015. The Limits of Legitimacy: Dissenting Opinions, Media Coverage, and Public Responses to Supreme Court Decisions. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.Maltzman, Forrest, Alyx Mark, Charles R. Shipan, and Michael A. Zilis. 2014. “Stepping on Congress: Courts, Congress, and Inter-Institutional Politics.”Journal of Law and Courts2(2): 219-240
Michael A. Zilis, page 2Research in Progress“The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics: An Interbranch Perspective on Judicial Legitimacy” With Hyeonho Hahm. Under review“The Sledgehammer and the Scalpel: Judicial Responsiveness and Credible Court Curbing in the Modern Era” With Alyx Mark. Under review“The Sources of DecliningSupreme Court Legitimacy Among Blacks: Group Interests, Specific Expectations, and Responses to Controversial Rulings” “Legal Decision Making and the Strategic Use of Emotional Rhetoric: Disagreeable Language in Supreme Court Opinions” With Justin Wedeking“The Influence of Local Law Enforcement Actions on Evaluations of Judicial Institutions: Identity and Efficacy” With Nick Davis and Matt Hitt“An Interbranch Perspective on Supreme Court Legitimacy: An Experimental Study of the Representation and Policy Seeking Mechanisms.” With Hyeonho Hahm“Curbing their Enthusiasm: When Does Congress Decide to Sanction the Supreme Court?” With Alyx Mark.“Blurring Institutional Boundaries: Judges’ Perceptions of Threats to Judicial Independence.” With Alyx Mark.“The Supreme Court on Trial: Negativity Bias, Positivity Bias, and Attitudes in the Wake of the Healthcare Ruling”Conference Presentations“An Interbranch Perspective on Supreme Court Legitimacy: An Experimental Study of the Representation and Policy Seeking Mechanisms.” With Hyeonho HahmMidwest Political Science Association National Conference2016“Blurring Institutional Boundaries: Judges’ Perceptions of Threats to Judicial Independence.” With Alyx MarkMidwest Political Science Association National Conference2016“Curbing their Enthusiasm: When Does Congress Decide to Sanction the Supreme Court?” With Alyx MarkSouthern Political Science Association Annual Meeting2016“The Use of Disagreeable Language in Supreme Court Opinions.” With Justin WedekingConference on Empirical Legal Studies2015“The Court’s on the Level? The Black-White Opinion Gap, the Constitution, and the Courts.”Midwest Political Science Association National Conference2015“The Symbol and the Noise: Do Bill Introductions Limit the Supreme Court’s Authority?” With Alyx Mark.Midwest Political Science Association National Conference2015
Michael A. Zilis, page 3“Investigating the Effects of Judicial Legitimacy on Micro-Level Opinion.” American Political Science Association Annual Meeting2014“Voting Behavior and Communication Strategies on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Midwest Political Science Association National Conference2014“Legitimation, Polarization, or Backlash? An Exploration of Public Reactions to the Affordable Care Act Decisions and Other Supreme Court Rulings.” Midwest Political Science Association National Conference2013“Aggressive Rhetoric: The Influence of Gender and Incivility on Attitudes Towards the Courts and the Political Process.” With Nancy Burns. Midwest PoliticalScience Association National Conference2013“Discretion v. Independence: Distinguishing Two Forms of Autonomy in Models of Judicial Behavior.” American Political Science Association Annual Meeting2012“The Court of Public Opinion: Responses to Contradictory Cues from the Media and Supreme Court.” Annual Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology2012“Mediated Justice: Understanding the Nature and Determinants of Public Responses to Supreme Court Decisions.” Midwest Political Science Association National Conference2012“Framing Struggles on the High Court: Cable News Programs and Constraints on the Ability of Elites to Frame Issues.” Northeastern Political Science Association Annual Meeting2011“I Respectfully Dissent: The Effect of Elite Disagreement on Media Framing of Supreme Court Decisions.” Midwest Political Science Association National Conference2011“Battles on the Big Screen: Cinema and the American War Experience.” Northeastern Political Science Association Annual Meeting2006“Societal Semantics: The Linguistic Representation of Society.” New York State Political Science Association Annual Conference2006Invited Participant. ATHGO International Symposium at the World Bank2006Invited Participant. International Young Researchers Conference2006
Michael A. Zilis, page 4Research PositionsResearch Assistant 2009-2012Dr. Charles ShipanUniversity of Michigan, Department of Political ScienceResearch Advisor2011-2012University of Michigan, Department ofPolitical ScienceIntern2006Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, OHUndergraduate Associate2005-2006Dr. Mark SachlebenMiami University, Department of Political ScienceUndergraduate Summer Scholar2005Dr. Pat HaneyMiami University, Department of Political ScienceTeachingJudicial Politics, University of KentuckyPolitics of Law and Courts, University of Kentucky20162015, 2016Public Opinion, DePaul University2015The American Presidency, DePaul University2015Introduction to American Politics, DePaul University2014, 2015Law and the Political System, DePaul University2014First Amendment Rights, DePaul University2014Undergraduate research advisor, University of Michigan2011, 2012Introduction to American Politics (TA),University of Michigan2008, 2009Instruction & Pedagogical TrainingManuscriptSkoskiewicz, Mark,and Michael A. Zilis. 2014. 99thPercentile: A Roadmap for Maximizing Performance on Standardized Tests. E-book.MyGuru2010-2015Professional tutorwith expertise in the social sciences, mathematics and statistics, English composition, and standardized testingDevelopment of test preparation materials for the GRE and GMAT2005-2007
Michael A. Zilis, page 5Bernard B. Rinella, Jr. Learning CenterExpertise in mathematics, statistics, and the social sciencesOutstanding tutor awardWalter L. Gross Jr. Family Student-Athlete Development Center2006-2007Expertise in mathematics, statistics, and the social sciencesPedagogical Training2003-2008Instructor Training (POLSCI 993)Center for Research on Learning and Teaching OrientationMethods for Tutoring Adults (EDT 310)Fellowships, Grants & HonorsEdward S. Corwin Award NomineeAmerican Political Science AssociationBest Doctoral Dissertation in Public Law2015Rackham One-Term Dissertation Fellowship2013Gerald R. Ford Fellowship$3500 research grant2012-2013Rackham Predoctoral Fellowship Program Nominee2012Gerald R. Ford Fellowship$4000 research grant2011-2012Thesis Grant$3400 research grant2011Department of Political Science Fellowship2010-2011IDEAS / IGERT FellowshipCenter for the Study of Complex Systems2007-2008Phi Beta Kappa2007Urban Leadership Internship Scholar2006Gary L. Best Memorial ScholarshipOutstanding senior Political Science student2006Jeanette and Clifford Harvey ScholarshipDepartment of Mathematics2006Undergraduate Summer ScholarDepartment of Political Science2005Sarah Glosik Memorial ScholarshipOutstanding junior Political Science student2005Koehler PrizeDepartment of Mathematics2005Harrison ScholarshipFull tuition, room and board2003-2007
Michael A. Zilis, page 6ServiceUniversity of Kentucky (2015-present)Undergraduate Program Committee, Department of Political ScienceFaculty Mentoring Program, College of Arts & SciencesReviewer, American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political ScienceProfessional AffiliationsAmerican Political Science AssociationMidwest Political Science Association
MICHAEL A. ZILIS Share this page:
Assistant Professor
Political Science
michael.zilis@uky.edu
1651 Patterson Office Tower
(859) 257-7030
Curriculum Vitae.pdf
www.michaelzilis.com
Research Interests:
Judicial Politics
Media
Public Opinion
American Political Institutions
Education
Ph.D., University of Michigan (2013)
B.A., Miami University (2007)
Biography
I joined the University of Kentucky in 2015 after two years at DePaul University. Prior to that, I completed a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Michigan and studied political science, history, and mathematics at Miami University.
My research focuses on the United States Supreme Court, including popular attitudes toward and media coverage of the institution, as well as judicial decision making and the Court's place in a separation of powers system. My dissertation, "I Respectfully Dissent: Linking Judicial Behavior, Public Responses, and Media Coverage in the Study of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions," was nominated for the American Political Science Association's Corwin Award for the best dissertation in the field of public law. My book, The Limits of Legitimacy, explores the related issue of public support for high profile rulings. It demonstrates that division on the Court fosters negative media coverage of landmark rulings, in turn robbing the justices of their ability to persuade a skeptical public. The book is currently available through the University of Michigan Press.
My other research spans a variety of questions in public law and judicial politics. This includes a range of work on the Court's legitimacy: in the African American community and in light of recent rulings like the voting rights decision, how evaluations of police behavior affect judicial legitimacy, and how citizens' understanding of the elected branches of government conditions their loyalty to the Court. I'm also involved in ongoing research on inter-institutional politics and Court-curbing attempts undertaken by Congress and studies of opinion content and judicial rhetoric (with Justin Wedeking).
I have a wide range of teaching experience in public law, political behavior, and American political institutions. At Kentucky, I regularly teach courses on judicial politics and the politics of law and courts.
Research
My first book, The Limits of Legitimacy, is available from the University of Michigan Press
Welcome!
I am Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Kentucky. My research focuses on the United States Supreme Court, including popular attitudes toward and media coverage of the institution, as well as judicial decision making and the Court's place in a separation of powers system. I hold a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Michigan, with expertise in American politics, public law and judicial politics, and political behavior and communication. My book, The Limits of Legitimacy, is currently available from the University of Michigan Press.
Outside Interests
Links
The Value of Drafting Youth
Performance of young players relative to draft position
Inefficiencies in the NBA Draft
In my spare time, I enjoy combining my interests in sports with my analytic skills to study, for instance, decision making in the National Basketball Association. An example project, exploring the biases that may hamper teams' ability to make the optimal draft selections, is discussed below.
MGoBlog
Grantland
Cavs: The Blog
SCOTUSBlog
Draft Pick Values (WS), 2000-2012
Home
Book
Research
Teaching
Etc.
The Questions
Do teams display biases when drafting? How can a successful organization exploit these biases to make the most effective draft decisions?
The Theory
In a perfect world, the only predictor of success in the NBA would be a player's draft position.
The Data
The effectiveness, measured by Win Shares, of all players drafted into the NBA since 2000 (over 700 players total)
The Findings
NBA teams display a systematic bias by overvaluing certain player attributes that do not correlate to success. Teams are consistently drafting certain types of players higher than their eventual performance would dictate.
Zilis, Michael A.: The limits of legitimacy: dissenting opinions, media coverage, and public responses to Supreme Court decisions
J.M. Keller
CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. 53.8 (Apr. 2016): p1243.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2016 American Library Association CHOICE
http://www.ala.org/acrl/choice/about
Listen
Full Text:
Zilis, Michael A. The limits of legitimacy: dissenting opinions, media coverage, and public responses to Supreme Court decisions. Michigan, 2015. 243p bibl index afp ISBN 9780472072743 cloth, $85.00; ISBN 9780472052745 pbk, $50.00; ISBN 9780472121243 ebook, contact publisher for price
(cc) 53-3747
KF8748
2015-20157 CIP
Using a meta-study of other studies as well as author-conducted studies and data focusing on media and policy making, Zillis (Univ. of Kentucky) attempts to explain how media coverage affects public opinion of decisions and the court itself. It matters what kind of coverage there is of Supreme Court decisions because the general public learns about them through the media, which usually covers one piece of the puzzle. The model proposed and used by Zillis to explore the effect of media coverage on the public's perception of the decision and the Court is "dissenses dynamics" based on two parts: the decisions dissent and ideological diversity of the Court in the majority and dissenting opinions. Using Lingle v. Chevron (2005) and Kelo v. New London (2005) as models, he conducts pre- and post-news coverage surveys to explore dissenses dynamics. The studies look at public opinion of Court decisions through the frames of media and the cues of the Court itself. What would make an interesting journal article is expanded and explored more thoroughly in a fascinating book. With data and models throughout, this is a great resource for students of journalism, political science, and rhetoric, including avenues for further study. Summing Up: *** Highly recommended. Lower-division undergraduates and above.--J. M. Keller, Florida Coastal School of Law
Zilis, Michael A.: The limits of legitimacy: dissenting opinions, media coverage, and public response to Supreme Court decisions
S.B. Lichtman
CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. 53.9 (May 2016): p1400.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2016 American Library Association CHOICE
http://www.ala.org/acrl/choice/about
Listen
Full Text:
53-4170
KF8748
CIP
Zilis, Michael A. The limits of legitimacy: dissenting opinions, media coverage, and public response to Supreme Court decisions. Michigan, 2015. 243p bibl index afp ISBN 9780472072743 cloth, $85.00; ISBN 9780472052745 pbk, $50.00; ISBN 9780472121243 e-book, contact publisher for price
Political science scholarship about how the US Supreme Court operates usually focuses on the strategic behavior of the justices. It is not often that a political scientist focuses on the significance of the opinions themselves; it is rarer still that a political scientist focuses on something other than the main opinions that represent the court's doctrinal holdings. This new study of the impact of Supreme Court dissents is thus a welcome addition to the literature. Zilis (Univ. of Kentucky) examines court disagreements in the large context of how news media portray the court to the general public. He specifically argues that the more dissensus that exists in a given case, the greater the chance that the media will present the decision as an activist ruling, a characterization that will call the decision's very legitimacy into question. In turn, such characterizations negatively shape the public's support for the court as an institution. Concentrating on recent decisions about eminent domain and the Affordable Care Act, the author brings a new perspective on the Supreme Court that will be refreshing to new analysts and veteran court scholars alike. Summing Up: ** Recommended. Graduate, research, and professional collections.--S. B. Lichtman, Shippensburg University