The PoliSci Pod: The Supreme Court with Tim Johnson
In this episode of the PoliSci Pod, Peer Advisors Aisha and Levi are joined by Professor Tim Johnson to discuss the Supreme Court, how Tim became a Courts scholar, and his courses.
The PoliSci Pod is a podcast created, hosted, and edited by political science peer advisors. Tune into episodes for peer advisors' advice, department news and event information, special guests, and more! Join us to stay connected to and informed on all things political science.
Listen to this episode, "The Supreme Court with Professor Tim Johnson," and subscribe to the PoliSci Pod on Spotify.
Episode transcript
Aisha: Hi everyone! Welcome to the PoliSci Pod. In today's episode, we'll be interviewing Professor Tim Johnson, the Horace T. Morse Distinguished Professor of Political Science here in the department. My name is Aisha Hersi, and I'm an undergraduate senior and one of the peer advisors in the department.
Levi: And my name is Levi Wilson. I'm a sophomore majoring in political science and a peer advisor in the department. Uh, thank you, Tim, for joining us. You are our first faculty guest, so we're very happy to have you. Um, we want to start just by letting you tell us a little bit about yourself, your background, your interests, so, go ahead.
Tim: Well, first off, I want to say how honored I am to be your first faculty member, and I'm also honored that you just asked me to be a part of this podcast. I love spreading the word about political science, so this is actually really fun to do. Um, you know, my background, I'm a Midwestern kid, uh, from a blue-collar town in southeastern Wisconsin, um, who came from a relatively political family. The news was always on in our house. This will date me, but there were two newspapers every day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, right? This is the late '70s, early-to-mid 1980s. Um, and my dad was a teacher — a social studies teacher — and also really interested in politics. And so we were always talking about history and politics around the dinner table and with the family. And I don't know if I always loved it, but it was always part of my life. And then in high school and in college, I was on the debate team, I was on the speech team. That kept me in the political realm. Um, I did mock trial in high school, not in college, and also did a lot of political things. I worked on campaigns in high school, I worked on campaigns in college, so there were a lot of things that just really got me into liking politics. And then there was that transition after college, not into politics, but political science. Sorry. And so, it was this idea of being able to use what I — or think about what I loved: politics, but study it in a systematic way as a social scientist. So that's a quick and dirty background, but that's really where a lot of this came from, as to why I wanted to be a political scientist. The only other thing I'll say is, I come from a long line of teachers. And so, being not only a research at an R1 university, but being able to teach undergraduates, graduate students, as well as people in the community, has always been really important to me.
Aisha: Yeah, and kind of transitioning to your research, before we get into kind of our more hard-hitting questions, we wanted to know a little bit about what pushed you towards studying courts the way you do.
Tim: That's a great question. Um, I won't say that it was by accident, but it was not my first choice. So, as an undergraduate, I was a political science major, but one strange thing that people don't know about me is I was also a Russian major. Um, and the reason for that is, I was in a curriculum at the small school that I went to, a plug to Gustavus Adolphus College down in St. Peter, Minnesota. Um, the curriculum that I was in said that I had to take two years of a language. I had done German in high school, didn't really like it. I didn't really want to learn Spanish. Um, and so I decided to learn something completely new, with a completely different alphabet, the Cyrillic alphabet. So I took two years of Russian and I was, like, four classes away from a major, and so I just said, why not double major in these, uh, two areas. But the combination of those majors led me to really be interested in wanting to study the transitions to democracy in Eastern and Central Europe. I graduated college in 1989 as the Berlin Wall is falling, the Soviet Union is crumbling. And so, I actually was going to graduate school to study Central Europe and Eastern European politics, as well as their constitution writing. Um, the professor who I went to graduate school to study with, he and I didn't hit it off. It wasn't that we didn't get along, but we didn't hit it off. I took some other American politics courses, including a course from Lee Epstein. She is one of, if not the most preeminent Supreme Court scholar in the world. Um, and we decided that she saw something in me and asked me to become one of her students. Um, I said yes because I loved the Supreme Court, I loved debate, I loved politics, I loved the law. Law school had been something I had thought about, but didn't pursue. And after she said she wanted me to work with her. That's all, that's all history at that point, and everything stems from that.
Levi: And thinking more about your position now, I mean, teaching courses in the political science department that are specific to the Supreme Court, how does your position differ from that of, like, a law professor?
Tim: Right, so one of the reasons I'm so happy that I pursued political science instead of law was that in law school — and this is not a knock on law professors, I have a lot of friends who are law professors and I have tons of respect for them — when they study the law, they are very close to literally studying the law. You are just studying what the doctrine says, and you do not look at the context of the world. And as Levi might know, he's taken, uh, some of my courses, what I tell my students when I do teach the constitutional law sequence is that there is so much more that goes into how the law is build over time than just the doctrine of the law. There are all sorts of contextual factors that affect how the law develops. Economic factors, social factors, political factors. And as a political scientist, I can make sure that all those are discussed and are seen by students to understand how the law develops over time. And the joke that I say to my students is that if you start talking about context in a law lecture in law school, you will either get laughed at or be asked to be quiet by a law professor. Now, not all of them. Some understand that context matters, but that doctrinal analysis is something that is fundamentally different- different between a law professor and a social scientist.
Aisha: That's really interesting. Now, moving on a little bit to the world we live in today, uh, Supreme Court justices often describe themselves as neutral arbiters of the law, rather than ideological actors. Now, based on your research, Tim, do you think that this claim is reflective of the actions and votes of justices within the Supreme Court?
Tim: Without a doubt, the answer to that is no, it's not reflective. And we've known, right, back to the founding that justices and judges more generally have policy preferences and political preferences in the same way that politicians do. I would never call a judge or a Supreme Court justice a politician, but I would certainly call them political actors because they're trying to get to particular policy and legal outcomes in the same way that a member of Congress is trying to get to particular policy outcomes. It is absolutely a fact that the law matters, and when — we'll just talk about the Supreme Court instead of lower court judges, just so we can put some parameters on it — when the justices decide, of course they are deciding based on the law. They're interpreting the law. But they all come from different backgrounds, they all come from different law schools, they all come from different socioeconomic places in their lives, they all come from different ideological backgrounds. Those things don't go away when they put on their black robes. They are still human beings, and they still bring those, um, predilections with them when they're deciding cases. We've also known empirically, since sort of post-World War II, we have data to show that justices are ideological. So in current court terms, we know that Justice Thomas makes conservative decisions because he's conservative, in the same way that we know that Justice Jackson makes more liberal decisions because she is more liberal. And the data are irrefutable. What we know is that ideology — we have very good measures of ideology in 2026 — can explain about 75 to 77 percent of the variation in how justices vote with, in particular, um, terms and over time.
Aisha: And so you mentioned, uh, Justice- those justices, and I'm just wondering, um, someone like Justice O'Connor is often described as less overtly partisan. Now, does this mean, Tim, that ideology mattered less in her own decision-making or just that it showed up differently?
Tim: So, the first thing I want to make clear is that ideology and partisanship are separate concepts. Ideology is something where you very consistently have a belief, and that belief system drives the decisions that you make. Partisanship is: I am making decisions, quite literally, that are helping my party. And let me explain how that makes it different, or how they should be considered different. Many of the executive branch decisions that the Trump administration is winning on a regular basis now at the U.S. Supreme Court, the Biden administration and the Obama administration were not winning. And an ideologically consistent court and and ideologically consistent justice would either be deciding in favor of the executive branch, no matter what the partisanship, Democrat or Republican, the executive is at that time. You would be deciding for or against, but uh- when partisanship leaks into the equation, now that's where you would say, no, if it's a Democrat and I'm a conservative and I'm a Republican, they're gonna lose, but once it becomes a Republican again, in this case President Donald Trump, I'm going to vote in their favor. Bring that back to Justice O'Connor. I actually think that Justice O'Connor was probably one of the most strategic justices to sit on the bench. She knew during her time on the court, with the exception of Justice Kennedy, that she was at the center of the court. She was probably the second most powerful person in the United States' federal government for the latter half of her tenure on the bench, maybe for at least a decade. Where Justice O'Connor went, the court went. And so, when Justice O'Connor wanted to decide with the liberal coalition on the court, the court would hand down more liberal decisions. And when she would side with the more conservative coalition, the court would hand down more conservative decisions. She was, beyond everything else, one of the most strategic political actors to sit on the bench, and it's probably no surprise that she was the last justice to sit on the bench, and maybe the last ever, who had once held elected office. She was a state legislator in the state of Arizona, uh, before she became a judge.
Levi: Well, thank you for the clarification. I think it's important, too, that we think about, um, like, the implications of partisanship and ideology when we're discussing justices and the actions that they take. U, another question that we wanted to ask was — I guess this is more me thinking about the way that you talk in class — um, you like to talk about implications of the public, and how unlike some other, you know, like, political institutions, the court doesn't have to think so much about what the public thinks about what they do. They have a job, they do it. Um, so when the court is particularly active in a way that catches media attention or is perhaps being labeled as controversial and public perception changes or public opinion goes up or down, do you think that that's really, like, really reflective of how citizens actually feel?
Tim: I think that that is actually probably pretty accurate, Levi. Um, of course, when we take public opinion polls, you all know as political science majors, um, that we just take samples of the population. But we also know that when you do the statistics right, when you draw a sample randomly and you draw it correctly, that that is reflective of what the population at large thinks, right? And we know that there have been polling issues with presidential campaigns in the past two or three elections. Um, but when polling is done right, or correctly, if you will, you get a really good indication. So yes, I mean, there's always exceptions to the rule, and there might be some people who are not affected by court decisions in the same way as the rest of the population, but buy and large the answer is yes, that those public opinion polls are quite reflective of what most Americans think when the court sides in one way or another.
Levi: And do you think, I mean, thinking about how, like, much more televised things are now that we, like, see, you know, kind of, like, the 24-hour news cycle and constant kind of, like, showcasing of what's being done within the government, do you think that people are more aware of what the Supreme Court is doing? And do you think that that makes public opinion polls more effective? Or do you think that it just doesn't matter so much?
Tim: I think it probably doesn't matter so much, to be honest. I will admit, although I don't know the numbers, that people are probably more informed about the Supreme Court today than they were say 25 years ago. That said, that increase has probably not been all that great. The court is still the most secretive of the three branches. Um, and just today, uh, the New York Times, uh, printed an article, or came out with an article that said that the court may have gotten even more secretive, that after the leaks that happened in 2022 surrounding the Dobbs opinion, um, that the Chief Justice and the justices as a whole, um, are now having staff members and clerks sign NDAs to work for the court. And so, this idea that the court has always been secret, and I will beat that drum until I retire or no one asks me about the court anymore, the court has gotten even more secret. The point is this: I don't know that people at writ large know any more about the court today than they did 25 years ago, but it is more likely that they do because the court is out front on issues so much more often, and then with the 25-7-365 new cycle, when the court is out front, people are hearing about it.
Levi: Well, thank you so much. Those are our more content-specific questions, so we appreciate your insight. Um, again, we wanted to just, like, give you a minute to promote your- promote your courses. What are you currently teaching? What are you teaching in future semesters?
Tim: Sure, so I have taught for, oh, close to 30 years now, the constitutional law sequence. Um, and since the year 2000, so 25 years at the University of Minnesota, I've been teaching that sequence. It's a two-course sequence, they don't have to be taken in order. 4501 which is, um, what we call powers and constraints, it's the one that students might think is more boring, and they couldn't be more wrong. But this is where we go over, um, the three branches of government and their powers, and how the court has interpreted those powers over time. And one of the reasons that's so controversial right now is that the court is fundamentally changing the structure of the federal government with how much power is being funneled to the executive branch at the cost of power of the judiciary and of the legislative branch. Um, and then we talk about federalism and the commerce power in that class, as well, and those actually have been very impactful cases over the course of U.S. history. The class in that sequence that the students probably think is more salient is civil liberties. Um, that class, I cover the entirety of the First Amendment. So we do the two religion clauses, the speech clause, the press clause, um, the, uh, freedom of association clause. Um, and then we do some of the boundaries of the First Amendment, so internet law, um, libel law, and obscenity law. And then we close out the semester with a topic that nobody thinks is controversial at all, and that's the right to privacy. And obviously I say that with some sarcasm because there are so many issues that are so controversial under the right to privacy, and the buzzword privacy has been, historically, at least historically at the end of the 20th and early 21st century, is that privacy equals abortion rights. And that's not — I mean, there are so many other issues under the right to privacy. Um, so that's one sequence. I do teach a whole course, 3309 about the Supreme Court decision-making process. The reason I love this course so much is if you haven't gotten so far in the podcast, I'm a Supreme Court geek. And I love opening up the Supreme Court — that as we've also established is the most secretive of the three branches — opening up that branch of the government to people not only within the class, but beyond that class as well. Um, I have, I continue to teach, um, during May term, um, uh, law and film. Uh, and I will never give that up because it's just a fun course to talk about some areas of the law while also watching some really cool movies from Hollywood. And then for the first time in over 15 years last year, I taught Introduction to American Government. It had been covered by younger people in the department for so long. Last year they needed someone. I decided to go back into that business and I'll teach it again next year. My big pitch on that class is, I teach 1001: intro to American government through the lens of The West Wing. And if you've never watched The West Wing, you ought to right now, begin to do so. But that class, all of the topics are tied to particular episodes of the West Wing and all of the writing assignments are tied to it as well, and it has become a really fun class to teach, and I think a fun class for students to be in.
Aisha: Wow, I wish I was a freshman, I could take that class.
Tim: You're welcome anytime.
Aisha: Well this sounds like such great topics. but kind of looking at maybe even your niche interest or things that have just been puzzling you or your mind, is there a course or specific topic that, you know, if you could teach, you would teach here at the U?
Tim: Yeah, I actually think that, um, I would like to teach a course about the politics and law of sports. Um, I probably wouldn't do that because you can take the sociology of sports in the SOC department. And I think it would overlap a lot, but there's so many political issues now with NILs, um, with, uh, the transfer portal, um, with- with Title IX. Um, there's so many legal issues involved in college sports, let alone sports beyond. I think I might like to teach that class. I think in the end, I would, like, teach my law and film course as a full semester course. I also have a version which is politics and film, um, which is politics more generally across a wide range of topics. Um, either one of those I would like to teach as a full-length course. The problem with that is I'm not a night person, and really the only way to teach that class correctly is to do it as a three-hour course where you watch a movie, you discuss the move in small groups or with the group writ large, and then- and then have the students write papers about it. And I don't think teaching a night course is in the books for me anytime in the future.
Levi: Well, we hope one day you're able to teach a course where you can just assign episodes of West Wing and can make students talk about it.
Tim: Fair enough.
Levi: You should turn 1001 into that, and it'll- we'll see eight million people enroll.
Tim: And that is, to be honest, that is essentially what it is. The reason I love that course is I teach it as a Tuesday-Thursday course, and every we watch one episode in class. So we- we- I introduce the topic, we watch- it's a 24-minute episode.
Levi: Are you being serious? Like, you actually-
Tim: Absolutely serious.
Levi: I did not know that.
Tim: You watch episodes — without commercials are 42 minutes long. And then I lecture for the rest of that day and then for the 75 minutes of the second class about that particular topic. And then there are take-home episodes, where they have to watch a couple of episodes at home that go along with that same topic. That is absolutely how that course is taught.
Levi: Every time you bring up West Wing in 4501, or every time you would last semester, I would just kind of be like, alright yeah. I didn't know it was this serious.
Aisha: Is it better than Veep?
Tim: You know, so everyone will tell you that Veep is more accurate. Right? And funnier. Because the folks behind the scenes of West Wing, a lot of them, including Bill Clinton's, um, head of press, where she did — she did all the press briefings. Dee Dee Myers was her name. Dee Dee Myers was one of the main consultants on that show, and there were a number of other, um, tried and true Washingtonians who consulted on that show. The one knock on The West Wing is that it is, um, maybe too rosy on how it sees politics, right? Whereas House of Cards is everything is horrible all the time in Washington, D.C., and Veep is sort of realistic, even though it's sort of slapstick from time to time. The West Wing is sort of in between those two, where it has very realistic views of the way things happen in the West Wing and in interactions with members of Congress and the Supreme Court and with interest groups and whomever it might be, but then a little bit rose-colored glasses. But sometimes everybody needs that, right? When the world is really difficult and you're not happy with politics, you can certainly go back and watch any- almost any episode of West Wing and feel better about politics. Um, the only thing that's dated about the show is that the computers are really big and it's not until season 3 or 4 that they have cell phones. But by and large, they cover some really hard-hitting topics.
Levi: That is incredible, thank you.
Aisha: Well, if you'd like to check out any other PoliSci Pod episodes, feel free to do so on our website.
Levi: Thank you guys so much for listening; thank you for joining us on the podcast. We were very happy to have you. We really appreciate you taking time to meet with us.
Aisha: I'm your host, Aisha.
Levi: And I'm your host, Levi. Thank you for listening to the PoliSci Pod.
