Civil cases generally involve a mix of individuals and corporations. While the government can be a party, more often state or federal officials are playing an off-stage role in setting a regulatory standard that was either met or not met in the case. A product manufacturer might have complied with the law, while a plaintiff is still saying they were negligent. Or an energy company might have exceeded a regulator’s permitted contamination levels, while still contesting whether those violations caused the plaintiffs’ damages. In situations like that, the amount of credibility that jurors attach to the government and its regulations will often be an important factor.
In recent months, regulators have also been at the center of many of the power struggles taking place in Washington. With the new administration’s strong focus on deregulation, we have seen dramatic changes in the content and enforcement of environmental, health and safety; labor; financial; and consumer protection regulations. And, of course, many of the regulators who enforce the standards that remain are the same government employees who have been targeted by the DOGE, or “Department of Governmental Efficiency.” Given the high degree of chaos in the current regulatory climate, we might expect the attitudes about regulators that jurors bring to court to be evolving. Based on our own data from our recent National Juror Survey, it seems they are changing. In this post, I’ll share some of these changes, and their implications.
The Data:
The Persuasion Strategies group has conducted a National Juror Survey over the years, focusing on the trial-relevant attitudes of the jury-eligible population across the country. Looking at their views of regulators in general, we have recently noted a couple of trends.
Regulatory Support Is Stronger with Younger Jurors
Looking at our data based on generational cohorts, we find that the strongest support for a protective role for regulators comes from younger jurors, with trust declining for older generations.
This could mean either that society is moving in the direction of greater support for regulations, or more likely, that people are more progressive in the sense of supporting an active government when they are younger. In any case, this means that the younger members of your venire, all other things being equal, are more likely to give credibility to the regulators and the regulations that play a role in your case.
We have also noted that this seems to be an accelerating trend. Comparing this year’s data to data from 2024, we observe that regulatory trust declined for baby boomers, but increased within every other cohort. This is possibly a “rally round” effect coming from more liberal members of the population as the current administration increasingly attacks regulators by removing science, freezing funds, and firing personnel. This also highlights a distinction between how people may feel about “government” per se, and how they feel about the current administration.
The Implications:
The main implication is to not treat regulator credibility as a given, since it varies not just by generational cohort, but by other demographics, region, and the specifics of your case. In the context of your trial story, the regulator’s role can vary, and we have found that jurors in different cases and in different demographic mixtures can bring one or more different “frames” to the regulator’s role. How they see the regulator and the regulations can play an important role in their interpretation of the reasonability of your party’s behavior.
Frame One: Regulation as Background Condition
Within this first frame, the regulatory climate is intuitively treated as a background condition — something you cannot control, but can only adapt to, like the weather. Within that perceptual context, businesses will be seen as having a responsibility to know and to comply with the regulations, but nothing more beyond that. It is like a speed limit that you have to follow.
Frame Two: Regulation as Social Judgment
If jurors supply a more active role to regulations, they might see them as social judgments. In that context, the regulations stand-in for the considered opinions of the population, as manifest through their elected leaders. The standard does not just exist as a requirement, it represents our view of social good. Under that frame, a business might be expected to not just minimally comply, but to instead embrace the spirit of the regulation, perhaps even absorbing the goals behind the regulations and actively working to exceed them.
Frame Three: Regulation as Particular Interest
On the opposite and more cynical end of the scale, jurors might frame the regulation as being just another form of social control exercised by a party for a particular reason. That reason might be politically partisan, or it might be corporate. That is, regulators might be seen as coopted by the very companies that they are supposed to be regulating. In that context, compliance counts for little, and the larger question will be whether the company — independent of the regulations — acted in a responsible or in a negligent manner.
There will almost certainly be others, but these are some of the main frames we see jurors supply in mock trials and focus groups. Even when the government isn’t a party in your case, it will often be important to assess how jurors are understanding and interpreting the government’s part in the story, including both their role and their credibility.
Image credit: Shutterstock, used under license
