Falling approval and polarized views of presidential power are turning judicial legitimacy into a consequential midterm argument nationwide.
Confidence in the Supreme Court has declined as its decisions become increasingly connected to arguments over presidential authority. A national survey released by Marquette Law School found that approval fell from 47% in July to 43% in September, while disapproval rose to 57%. That result places the Court near its weakest position during President Donald Trump’s second term.
The Supreme Court justices in Washington, D.C.Jabin Botsford / nbcnews via Getty Images file
Marquette’s findings reveal more than dissatisfaction with particular rulings. Majorities believe political considerations influence judicial decisions, while many voters suspect the Court avoids confrontations that could test whether the president would obey an adverse ruling. Those perceptions create an electoral problem because candidates must discuss judicial independence without treating public opinion as proof of how the justices actually decide cases.
Marquette measured Court approval among 1,023 adults interviewed from September 2 through September 9, 2026, with a margin of error of 3.3 percentage points. Approval stood at 43%, the second lowest level recorded by the poll since January 2025. Party identification produced a much wider division, with approval reaching 71% among Republicans, 36% among independents and 19% among Democrats.
Court approval has fallen as partisan perceptions increasingly diverge nationally, via Marquette Today.
Other national surveys reinforce the direction of the findings, although their measurements should not be treated as identical. Gallup measured Supreme Court job approval at 34% in September, while 46% expressed confidence in the federal judicial branch. Pew Research Center measured favorability rather than job approval, finding 45% favorable and 53% unfavorable views in July.
Voter confidence in Supreme Court this century, via nbcnews
Different question wording, field dates and survey methods explain why those toplines do not match exactly. Agreement across the surveys still matters because each places positive sentiment below a majority. Court legitimacy therefore faces a broad confidence problem rather than an isolated movement inside one poll.
Public concern becomes more consequential when the question turns from general approval to presidential compliance. Marquette found that 54% believed the Supreme Court was going out of its way to avoid a ruling Trump might refuse to obey, while 46% disagreed. That national division has remained relatively stable, ranging from 54% to 57% across seven surveys since September 2025.
Executive power concerns divide voters across sharply contrasting partisan lines, via Marquette Wire.
Partisan differences transform that institutional concern into a campaign issue. Among Democrats, 78% believed the Court was avoiding such a confrontation, compared with 57% of independents and 28% of Republicans. Those figures measure public perception of judicial behavior, not evidence that the justices deliberately changed their docket or reasoning.
Recent decisions also resist a simple description of the Court as either loyal to Trump or consistently opposed to him. Reuters reported that the justices delivered several major victories for expanded presidential authority, while rejecting administration positions involving tariffs, birthright citizenship and the Federal Reserve. Candidates can criticize individual outcomes, but accuracy requires acknowledging that the Court’s record varies by case and legal question.
Institutional dissatisfaction has not produced equal support for every proposed change. Marquette found 89% support for enforcing a strict ethics code and 79% support for replacing lifetime service with fixed terms. Increasing the number of justices received a much narrower 53%, demonstrating that voters distinguish accountability measures from altering the Court’s size.
Ethics rules and term limits attract support across partisan divisions, via Brennan Center for Justice.
Awareness of reform proposals remains limited despite their popularity. Only 18% of adults said they had heard or read a lot about increasing the number of justices or establishing fixed terms, while 27% had heard nothing. Among independents, the share hearing nothing reached 42%, leaving campaigns with substantial room to define what reform would mean before voters encounter the details.
Broad support does not eliminate legal and political obstacles. An enforceable ethics system would require agreement over who establishes, administers and enforces its rules. Fixed terms would also generate constitutional and implementation disputes, while changing the Court’s size would demand legislation capable of surviving opposition in Congress and from the president.
Court politics creates different strategic pressures for each party. Democratic candidates can connect low approval to ethics enforcement, fixed terms and limits on executive authority, but arguments framed entirely around unfavorable rulings risk appearing results driven. Republican candidates can defend judicial independence while still confronting concerns among independents about presidential compliance and political motivation.
Voters disagree sharply about whether current Court power is appropriate, via Pew Research Center.
Marquette found that 57% of adults believed politics mainly motivates the justices, compared with 42% who selected the law. That result included 74% of Democrats, 54% of independents and 41% of Republicans. Candidates who discuss the Court therefore face an audience divided not only over decisions, but over what voters believe produces those decisions.
Successful campaign messages will need to separate three questions that political rhetoric often combines. Voters can dislike a ruling while accepting the Court’s authority, support structural reform without favoring expansion, or distrust the institution without believing every decision is partisan. Clear distinctions will matter more than broad accusations if candidates want to persuade voters outside their existing coalition.
Supreme Court approval has fallen below a majority across several national measurements. Exact levels vary because Marquette, Gallup and Pew ask different questions using different methods. Shared direction across those surveys nevertheless establishes a sustained institutional confidence problem.
Executive power gives that problem immediate political relevance. Majorities believe politics influences judicial decisions, and 54% suspect the Court avoids rulings Trump might refuse to obey. Those perceptions do not establish judicial intent, but they shape how voters interpret every consequential case involving the administration.
Court legitimacy will therefore enter the midterm campaign through arguments about compliance, ethics and institutional design. Candidates who reduce the issue to partisan outcomes may deepen the distrust they claim to address. Candidates who distinguish rulings, public perceptions and workable reforms will offer voters a clearer test of judicial accountability.