<p>When deciding whether to support social policies, Americans often rely on a simple heuristic: whether those in need are deserving of assistance. While prior work has identified widely shared criteria for deservingness judgments, we argue that in an age of affective, identity-based polarization, these criteria are applied through a partisan lens. Though public policies are not geared specifically to benefit “Democrats” or “Republicans,” we suggest that Americans use group-based cues to identify the likely partisan composition of those who benefit from a particular policy and, in turn, evaluate beneficiaries in ways that reflect inparty bias. Using a series of survey experiments, we provide evidence for three claims. First, we show that Americans hold clear stereotypes about which social groups are associated with the Democratic and Republican parties. Second, wsse demonstrate that partisans generally view “inparty” social groups more favorably than “outparty” groups with respect to core deservingness criteria. Third, we show that these group-based perceptions shape evaluations of social policy beneficiaries, as partisans are more likely to support otherwise identical policies if told that the benefits will go to inparty groups. These results highlight the role of group identity in structuring public opinion about redistribution. They also suggest that policymakers can influence support for social programs by framing them in group-based terms, allowing partisans to infer whether inparty or outparty groups are likely to benefit.</p>