Past studies of racial inclusion on judicial panels have focused on how substantive and descriptive representation shape peoples’ support for courts. However, authoritarian psychological dispositions may also affect people's perceptions of the judiciary. Individuals who are more obedient to authority and more hostile toward outgroups might show low levels of support for judicial panels that include outgroup members. Conversely, racial exclusion in judicial panels might threaten libertarian values, especially when the Court rules against minority interests, decreasing judicial legitimacy among libertarian respondents. We test these expectations using a survey-based experiment that varies the inclusion of Latinos in a three-judge panel and the outcome limiting rights of undocumented immigrants. We find that as Latino representation decreases, a panel issuing an anti-Latino ruling was considered less legitimate. We also find that inclusion of Latino judges has no impact on authoritarians’ assessment of the panel, regardless of the ruling. This suggests that while authoritarians do not penalize the court based on outgroup considerations, exclusion of minorities offends deeply held values of pluralism among the least authoritarian,eroding trust in and legitimacy of the panel. Ultimately, judicial legitimacy only suffers when minority interests are threatened and when they have little or no role in the decision-making process.