Gilbert: Can Trump ignore the courts? Here's what polling shows Americans think
Some of those rulings have gone Trump's way. Some have gone against him, leading the president and his deputies to lash out at the judiciary and accuse it of overreaching.
How does the American public view the simmering Constitutional conflicts between the executive and judicial branches?
It's an evolving story, but the polls suggest that in some important ways the public stands more solidly behind the courts than it does the president.
Consider these findings from the most recent nationwide poll by the Marquette Law School, taken last month and released May 21:
∎ Americans overwhelmingly recognize the judiciary's role in determining the legality of a president's actions. Asked, 'If the Supreme Court rules against the president in a case, does the president have the power to ignore that ruling, or is the president required to do as the ruling says?' Eighty-four percent of adults say the president must obey the court's ruling.
∎ Asked if court orders temporarily blocking some of Trump's executive actions are a proper use of judicial authority, almost two-thirds (64%) say, 'Yes.'
∎ Asked about Trump's call for the impeachment of federal judges who have ruled against some of his spending freezes and closures of federal agencies, 70% say these judges should not be impeached for such rulings.
∎ Asked about two high-profile immigration-related rulings — one ordering the administration to facilitate the return of a man erroneously deported to El Salvador and the other requiring due process for those being deported — well over 60% of adults supported the high court's rulings against the Trump Administration.
On some of these questions, not surprisingly, there is a split between Republicans and people outside the president's party (independents and Democrats). But on others, even Republicans support the courts.
Take the broad question of whether Trump can ignore the Supreme Court. There is notably little partisan difference on this: 78% of Republicans, 78% of independents and 93% of Democrats say the president is required to do as the ruling says.
Viewed one way, this is not an earth-shattering result. After all, the Constitution gives the courts the authority to decide on the legality of the president's actions. This is plain old civics.
But viewed another way, it is a pretty powerful statement, because it is so uncommon these days to find this much agreement across party lines on any high-profile conflict involving this extremely polarizing president.
In other words, the prospect of a president ignoring the courts is unappealing even to Trump's core supporters. Of adults who 'strongly approve' of the job Trump is doing, less than a quarter say the president can ignore a Supreme Court ruling, while 76% say he is required to do as the ruling says.
On some other questions, a majority of Republicans take Trump's side in these collisions. But even in those cases, support for Trump's position falls far short of his overall approval rating within his party (almost 90%). Instead, a very sizable minority of self-identified Republicans side with the judiciary.
Roughly 40% of Republicans say that federal court orders blocking some of Trump's executive actions are a proper use of judicial authority.
In the two immigration cases cited above, about 40% of Republicans support the Supreme Court's rulings against Trump. And almost half of Republicans (46%) oppose the call by Trump and his deputies to impeach federal judges who have ruled against the president.
One other thing to keep in mind about public opinion in this area is that the Supreme Court is more popular than the president. The court has a net positive rating, Trump has a net negative rating: 53% of adults nationwide approve of the court's performance, while 46% approve of Trump's performance, according to this recent Marquette poll.
The court's approval has risen since 2024, while Trump's has declined from its high point at the beginning of his term in January.
The court, which has issued rulings in recent years that have pleased (and outraged) both parties, is also far less polarizing than the president. It gets positive ratings from Republicans, who understand that most of the court's members were appointed by GOP presidents. And while it gets much lower ratings from Democrats, those numbers have been improving as the court has come under fire from Trump. The Supreme Court's approval rating among Democrats rose from 19% in January to 31% in May.
The polling doesn't tell us how future rulings, or further attacks by Trump on judges, or a deeper constitutional conflict between the president and the courts might affect the public's views of the judiciary in the months and years ahead.
It is possible Trump could drive down support for the court within his own party (the polling finds that Republican support is higher for impeaching judges when Trump personally is advocating it than when it is simply members of Congress doing so, a sign of Trump's personal power to move Republican sentiment).
But further attacks by Trump on judges are also likely to increase support for the courts outside the president's political base.
In Marquette's past four national surveys dating back to last fall, the polling has consistently shown that a huge majority of Americans recognize the courts' role in refereeing disputes over executive power.
And so far, that has not been dented by the president's attacks on the courts' actions, motivations and authority.
Craig Gilbert provides Wisconsin political analysis as a fellow with Marquette University Law School's Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education. Prior to the fellowship, Gilbert reported on politics for 35 years at the Journal Sentinel, the last 25 in its Washington Bureau. His column continues that independent reporting tradition and goes through the established Journal Sentinel editing process.Follow him on Twitter: @Wisvoter.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Trump defying the courts? Here's where the public stands in polling
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Watch MAGA politicians die inside as their voters turn on them at town hall meetings
Republicans may be in power right now, but that doesn't make them immune from criticism — even in bright red states like Nebraska — and one conservative's constituents took that to a whole new level on Monday night. The GOP is no stranger to being heckled and booed at city council meetings, rallies, and town hall meetings — just look at JD Vance's propensity for inspiring anger in crowds — but House Republican Rep. Mike Flood just faced an onslaught of hostile Nebraskans when he tried to defend President Donald Trump's massive spending and tax bill that contains cut to Medicaid, ABC News reports. 'Given your full-throated support of the bill, whatever we call it, and your view of the facts, I'd like to know how you expect tp pay back a lot of this debt that is going to be layered onto our grandchildren because we're not willing to make our rich part of our society pay their fair share,' one Nebraskan in the audience asked the congressman to cheers from the crowd. When Flood attempted to explain himself, he was drowned out by the audience chanting, 'Tax the rich, tax the rich!' At other points during the town hall meeting, Flood was met with boos, heckling, and people shouting 'vote him out' so loudly that he had to stop talking, including when he was trying to explain that cutting Medicaid was the answer to cutting healthcare costs, despite the Bipartisan Policy Center reporting that the Trump administration's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' will cost the country $3.4 trillion. But it was one Nebraska citizen who took her opportunity at the podium to ask a question that has probably been on many people's minds these days. While asking a 'fiscal' question where she referenced ICE spending millions every day to illegally detain people, the makeshift immigration detention facility dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz,' and FEMA dollars being used to open 'more concentration camps,' one woman asked, 'How much does it cost for fascism? How much do the taxpayers have to pay for a fascist country?' as the crowd erupted in applause. Flood may have just entered the 'find out' stage of 'f*ck around and find out,' but he isn't the only Republican who is facing backlash from their constituents. Iowa Republican Ashley Hinton was heckled and laughed at when she praised Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' and defended his decision to accept a jet from Qatar. Angry constituents didn't hold back when Republican Congressman Chuck Edwards (R-N.C.) defended Trump and Elon Musk's sweeping cuts to the government at a town hall meeting in March. The interaction with the crowd became so hostile that Edwards even had to be escorted from the building. 'You're taking away my Social Security, f*ck you!' one U.S. Veteran shouted while the crowd cheered him on and applauded. Republican Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall walked out of his own town hall meeting early after people angry about the Trump administration's budget cuts and funding freezes made their voices heard. The senator was booed as he entered the meeting and was quickly asked questions about veterans being fired by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, but instead of answering his constituents questions, he ended the meeting and walked out. Florida GOP Rep. Byron Donalds faced a contentious crowd at a town hall in April. The attendees shouted from the crowd while the congressman kept asking, 'do you want to yell, or do you want to hear?' The crowd erupted into applause when one person asked, 'Do you approve of Elon and DOGE invading our Social Security files? But Donalds only got boos when he tried to answer. And these are all just examples of Republicans being shut down by their own constituents since Trump took office. We hate to see the damage the Republican Party is doing every day they hold onto power, but it's highly satisfying to see them squirm when their voters hold them accountable! This article originally appeared on Pride: Watch MAGA politicians die inside as their voters turn on them at town hall meetings RELATED Watch This GOP Senator Act Like A Child & Get Schooled Like A Child By Sen. Bernie Sanders 6 shocking celebrities who used to be Republicans The Republican National Convention is the 'Super Bowl' of faceless Grindr hookups — SHOCKER!
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Fed chair shortlist: Why Bessent was ruled out
Yahoo Finance Senior Reporter Jennifer Schonberger joins Market Domination with Josh Lipton to give the latest updates on President Trump's shortlist for Federal Reserve chair. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination. President Donald Trump says he is now narrow down the list of prospects for who could be the next Federal Reserve chair to four candidates. Not on that list, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Trump told CNBC in an interview Tuesday morning, this morning that Bessent told him last night, he doesn't want the job for Fed chair and wants to stay where he is right now as Treasury Secretary. So who is on that short list? Well, the president said the two Kevins are doing well, implying that the former Fed governor Kevin Warsh and current director of the President's National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett are in the running. Both have advocated for lower interest rates, something the president wants. Meanwhile, Fed governor Chris Waller is also thought to be in the running. When asked about Waller, Trump didn't deny that Waller was among the four possible contenders. Waller dissented last policy meeting against holding rate steady, preferring to cut rates by 25 basis points instead. Now this news comes after Fed governor Adriana Kugler unexpectedly announced she's resigning effective this Friday, offering the president an opportunity to fill an open slot on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors when he's aggressively been pushing the central bank to lower interest rates. The president also noted he will announce a replacement for Kugler very shortly and then that person could go on to become the next Fed chair. He says he expects to make an announcement on the next Fed chair soon. Josh. And Jen, while we have you, how much would the person who fills Kugler's seat, how much would that tip the scales for a decision here? Honestly, Josh, it may not tip the scales all that much. We know that he's probably going to appoint a dove, someone who favors lower interest rates because he has been hammering the central bank for lower interest rates. But that would only give you officially three doves, right? Because we know Fed governors Waller and Bowman, both support cutting interest rates right now. Then you'd have the third person in place, but then you'd have the rest of the 19 member FOMC committee to contend with, and we know that the rest of those members remain in a wait and see mode. There are some that are more middle of the road, like San Francisco Fed president Mary Daly, who could be inclined to vote for a rate cut by September, though that remains to be seen based on the data, but it's not a slam dunk that one change in one position could alter the voting of the Federal Reserve. Related Videos Blade CEO talks Joby deal, helicopter business, eVTOL adoption How Wall Street & DC are reacting to Trump's BLS firing Trump to announce new Fed governor & BLS head this week The Fed is concerned. This economist explains exactly why. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pfizer CEO details talks with Trump administration on tariffs, Most Favored Nations pricing
Pfizer (PFE) CEO Albert Bourla said Tuesday he has a "special relationship" with President Trump, cemented during the COVID-19 pandemic when the two were in regular contact to help speed up vaccine production. That relationship, he said, has created a direct line to discuss some of the headwinds the company faces out of Washington, D.C. In his second term, Trump is targeting the drug industry for high prices and overseas production — threatening tariffs as high as 250% on imported drugs. But Bourla told Yahoo Finance he believes Trump and other officials in D.C. are having productive conversations with industry leaders about tariffs and drug pricing. "I think [Trump] is educated, of course he doesn't go into the details, it's not his job, but he understands the dynamics [of the industry]," Bourla said. When asked about the tariff threat, Bourla shared his understanding from his ongoing discussions. "I don't want to speak for the president, but what he said today, which was very important also, was that it would be a very small tariff in the first couple of years. And then he opened the window for a grace period. Because I had this discussion with him and I had this discussion with multiple other members of the administration," Bourla said. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet The industry is awaiting the results of an investigation by the administration into how those tariffs will be implemented — and Bourla said the devil will be in the details. Currently, more than 90% of prescriptions in the US are from generics, which are often the cheapest drug type. Branded drugs are often the most expensive and are largely produced in the US. But some early components of the manufacturing process, key chemicals known as active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), are often made overseas in Europe or Asia. That will be important to understand when the final ruling for the tariffs is made. "We need to understand if the API will dictate the country of origin, or where the final product is made," Bourla said. Pfizer is also one of the companies that received a letter from Trump last week detailing demands to reduce prices for Medicare and Medicaid enrollees to match the lowest price paid by developing nations, known as Most Favored Nations (MFN). The company is currently planning for the implementation of reduced prices, as well as working on how to mitigate negative impacts, Bourla said. "We are still discussing it with the president. ... The devil could be in the details in these stages," he said. Anjalee Khemlani is the senior health reporter at Yahoo Finance, covering all things pharma, insurance, provider services, digital health, PBMs, and health policy and politics. That includes GLP-1s, of course. Follow Anjalee as AnjKhem on social media platforms X, LinkedIn, and Bluesky @AnjKhem. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data