The Spectrum of (Dis)Trust: Media Strategies of Constitutional Judges and their Impact on Legitimacy of Judiciary

The judiciary is not isolated from the society. It needs to build its legitimacy, inter alia, on public support as a shield against possible retaliation from politicians and other influential groups (Staton 2010; Zilis 2015). According to Sullivan and Feldbrin (2022), judges should be able, at minimum, to formulate the basic thoughts on their cases in a comprehensive manner to public in order to maintain basic understanding of their work and thus build a reservoir of public support. Keeping the well-performing judiciary open and transparent can raise its public legitimacy and help it retain public support and a reservoir of public goodwill (Hanych, Smekal and Benák, 2023). In this qualitative study, based on in-depth interviews with judges of the Czech Constitutional Court, we delve into how these judges harness public opinion and media for judicial empowerment and legitimacy. Our findings reveal a stark divergence in media strategies among the judges, leading to internal distrust within the court. The judges' stances range significantly, with some adopting a pro-media approach, advocating open communication with the public, while others adhere to traditionalist views, eschewing media engagement. This dichotomy not only strains internal court dynamics but also potentially impacts the judiciary's external relations with the public, media, political figures, and other groups, thereby affecting the trust and legitimacy of the justice system.