For Mary, a Black woman exercising judicial power in the Deep South, authority is something she must continually defend rather than something guaranteed by her office. Her narrative highlights the intertwined pressures of race and gender that erode her legitimacy at every level. The novel shows that a Black woman in her position must navigate a justice system that treats her right to preside as fragile. Individuals from every branch of society, from convicted offenders to colleagues and state officials, challenge her standing due to her marginalized status as a Black woman in an official role of power.

Through Mary’s experiences, the novel lays bare the mixture of racism and misogyny that Black women encounter despite being in positions of authority. For instance, during sentencing, Gray shouts, “I’m a white man. I can’t get any justice from this affirmative action bitch they hired!” (22). The insult is designed to undercut her hard-won authority and credentials by suggesting that she has gained the role precisely because she represents a marginalized minority. The governor and attorney general echo this contempt in private remarks. The attorney general’s complaint that he has “put up with shit from that uppity bitch for years” is particularly telling (126). The word “bitch” attacks her gender, and “uppity” carries a long history of undermining Black people who challenge white power. His claim that he’s been forced to “put up” with Mary’s authority indicates a deep resentment of the reversal of traditional power dynamics. These comments show how deeply Mary’s identity as a Black woman shapes the hostility she faces.

A more measured challenge to Mary’s authority comes from DA Robert Reeves. In her courtroom, he treats her status as limited through small yet significant gestures of disrespect. During the Pitt trial, he accuses her of lacking impartiality, stating, “Every case has to be decided on the basis of your life, your personal history, the way it makes you feel” (61). In this way, Reeves presents Mary’s background as a Black woman from Bullock County as a liability, framing her insight as bias instead of valuable experience. His assertion that Mary’s decisions are based on her feelings deliberately plays on stereotypes of women as too emotional to hold positions of authority. His conduct represents a less outwardly aggressive yet insidious form of prejudice.

Public attacks on Mary’s reputation extend this pattern. The tabloid headline emphasizing Mary’s unmarried status and describing her best friend as a “well-known lesbian activist” detracts from her judicial expertise through implied speculation (250). The smear aims to recast her rulings as political gestures tied to her presumed sexuality and personal relationships. By shifting attention from her legal decisions to her private life, critics paint her as an easily influenced woman rather than an impartial judge. Presenting Mary as the constant target of criticism, the narrative shows how successful Black women face continual attempts to strip them of authority.