Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Only with listening can justice be applied properly

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson answers questions during her March confirmation hearings.

China News Service/Getty Images

Thomas is an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Indianapolis and a public voices fellow through The OpEd Project.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has made history as the first Black woman confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Both her confirmation hearings and her history as a judge underscore a larger issue: Justice can’t exist without listening.

The hearings brought the brokenness of the proceedings to light, with many speaking over her and failing to listen. This reflects, in particular, a profound misunderstanding of the procedures necessary to uphold the legitimacy of the judicial system. Listening is an underemphasized pillar of justice. While many people might think of the judicial system as a mechanism of distributive justice (allocating rewards and punishments appropriately), procedural justice (fair process and treatment) can serve as a stronger motivator of law-abiding behavior in its citizens.


In her opening speech, Jackson said her nearly 600 written legal decisions tend to be lengthy because she is committed to transparency. She stated she wants “each litigant to know that the judge in their case has heard them, whether or not their arguments prevail in court.”

Yale law professor Tom Tyler has demonstrated through his scholarship that most people obey the law not because of perceived consequences, but because they believe the laws to be fair and legitimate.

When people feel fairly treated, through respectful processes and listening practices, they legitimize authorities. This legitimacy can happen even when people disagree with the distributive outcome as long as the process feels fair.

Transparency and voice are pillars of justice, and important predictors of legitimacy attributions in a wide range of studies.

The appointment of a justice who takes great care in providing transparency and procedural justice will strengthen the legitimacy of the courts at a time when the perception of the Supreme Court is at an all-time low. The appointment of a Black female, especially one who is committed to practices of transparency and procedural justice, has the potential to increase public legitimacy of the Supreme Court. A recent Gallup poll gave her the second highest approval rating, behind only Chief Justice John Roberts.

If the judicial sentence is distributed correctly, but if the process is botched, it will not feel like justice. And the perception of justice matters. Research shows that the perception of justice in one’s personal life drives motivation, well-being, feelings of safety and positive future orientation.

A disproportionate amount of hearing time was spent on browbeating the nominee over whether she is tough enough on crime. While this is arguably a flawed perspective shaded by race, it is also a short-term, fear-mongering focus that does not take into account the role that justice practices and adequate representation can play in legitimizing the system itself. When a system is deemed legitimate and people feel heard, they are more likely to abide by a social contract. The role of procedural justice in shaping legitimacy is critical at this point in American history.

Fostering a just society also means creating systems that are considered legitimate by the people who live under them. There is a popular narrative that tough sentencing deters crime. In short, it absolutely does not, likely because criminals don’t weigh their future in the same way policy writers do. Legitimizing legal authorities does improve compliance with the law. Thus, a system that practices listening increases people’s perception of the legitimacy of the system. Most importantly, it deters crime.

Through my years of studying justice perceptions in the family, school and legal authorities in Brazil, Kenya, and the United States, I have come to understand justice as a form of capital that is not equally distributed. Justice capital can be increased by authorities who listen and grant citizens a voice. When judges institute practices of listening, they are increasing one’s individual access to justice and strengthening the legitimacy of democratic judicial institutions.

Above all, listening grants humanity and a level of respect that will be the surest way to strengthen our justice system and ensure a stable, legitimate democracy because, as the old adage goes, people remember how they are treated. And they most certainly remember when they feel as if they have been heard.


Read More

Vote pins

Vote pins

Photo provided

Sharp Gender Divide Among Latino Voters

A new analysis from the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute (LPPI) and the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS) reveals significant political differences between Latinas and Latino men in California — especially among younger voters and those without bachelor’s degrees. The findings, drawn from the May 2026 Berkeley IGS Poll of 1,912 Latino registered voters, challenge the notion that California’s Latino electorate behaves as a single political bloc.

California Latinas are more likely than Latino men to prioritize protecting immigrant communities, opposing the Trump administration’s agenda, and defending democracy and voting rights. According to the report, 69% of Latinas say protecting immigrant communities is “very important,” compared with 52% of Latino men. On “fighting the Trump agenda,” the gap is identical: 68% of Latinas versus 51% of Latino men. Democracy and voting rights receive the strongest support across both groups, with 87% of Latinas and 77% of Latino men rating the issue as very important.

Keep ReadingShow less
unrecognizable businessman giving speech to professional audience

Brain science explains why voters reward charisma over results — and why the leaders who "fix" the most get credit for the least. A behavioral look at elections.

alvaro gonzalez/Getty Images

The Résumé Should Outvote the Smile

There's an old joke about a couple who finally solved years of arguing over decisions. "Since you're the man of the house," the wife said, "you handle the big things -- our stance on foreign wars, who we send to the Senate. I'll take care of the small stuff: groceries, the mortgage, where we live, what we eat." The husband agreed happily, certain he had won the better half of the deal. A few years later he realized the trade had gone entirely the other way. He held forth on geopolitics at dinner parties while his wife quietly ran every detail that actually touched his life: what he ate, where he lived, how his money was spent. What looked like ultimate authority was, in practice, near-total abdication over the things that shaped his days.

Voters make the same trade, and pay for it the same way. We keep hiring leaders for the qualities we would want in a spouse -- warmth, charm, a commanding voice, the sense that they see us -- instead of the qualities we would want in a mechanic: someone who can find what is broken and fix it before the whole system fails. We evaluate candidates the way we choose intimate partners, not the way we hire people to run complex, high-stakes systems.

Keep ReadingShow less