Most Americans Don't Believe Supreme Court Is Impartial—Poll
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Nearly seven in 10 Americans doubt that the Supreme Court is impartial when making decisions.
Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court's public information office for comment via email.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court has faced eroding public trust in recent years, with an increasing number of Americans questioning its impartiality. In its most recent term, the conservative-leaning court handed down important rulings that could reshape executive authority, as well as have implications for matters like LGBTQ+ rights.
What To Know
A new poll from YouGov surveyed Americans about whether they believe the justices base their decisions on legal analysis or their own political views.
Sixty-eight percent of respondents said they believe the justices "often let their own personal or political views influence their decisions." Only 32 percent said they believe the justices "usually decide their cases based on legal analysis without regard to their own personal or political views."
In another poll question, 28 percent of respondents said they believe the court is "impartial in its decisions," while 53 percent believe the court "tended to favor one group more than another."
Americans broadly supported measures such as enforcing an ethical code for justices, backed by 75 percent of respondents, and setting a maximum number of years justices can serve, backed by 71 percent of those included in the poll.
The poll surveyed 1,043 U.S. adults from June 30 to July 2, 2025, and had a margin of error of ±4.3 percentage points.
Supreme Court justices sit for their official portrait on October 7, 2022, in Washington, D.C.
Supreme Court justices sit for their official portrait on October 7, 2022, in Washington, D.C.The poll's findings are "not at all" surprising, Paul Collins, professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Newsweek.
The main factor in eroding trust in the court is that the "conservative majority is pushing the conservative legal agenda through its decisions," Collins said. The court is doing so by "overruling existing precedents, and stripping away civil rights and liberties, including reproductive freedom and protections for vulnerable minority groups," he said.
"Americans are recognizing the Supreme Court for what it is: a brazenly political institution. And this isn't my opinion—it is backed up by hard data. Today's Supreme Court is the most conservative Court in modern history. In fact, the recent Supreme Court marks the first time in the contemporary era that all of the Court's Republicans are more conservative than all of the Court's Democrats," he said.
Former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi told Newsweek that the justices' actions outside the courtroom could also be weighing on public opinion.
"Allegedly one member has a spouse who flew the American flag upside down during January of 2021. Another justice allegedly has a spouse who is a firm believer and is an election denier. This spouse believed in 'Stop the Steal' principles and themes. Those are two of the nine justices," he said. "I think the American public sees that, reads that and concludes the members of the Supreme Court are not purer than Caesar's wife."
Rossi is referring to Martha-Ann Alito, the wife of Justice Samuel Alito, who was accused of flying an upside down American flag—a symbol used by some Trump supporters to show support with the president's unproven claims the 2020 election was stolen—outside her home, and Ginni Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, who allegedly sent texts to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows urging him to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
He pointed to the court's ruling that gave presidents immunity for official actions, tied to President Donald Trump's case for his alleged role in the January 6, 2021, riots at the U.S. Capitol, as one ruling that has diminished people's opinion of the court.
Critics also point to decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that guaranteed abortion rights across the country, as an example of a case that has eroded trust for some Americans.
In the most recent term, the Court's ruling in Trump v. CASA, a case related to the president's executive order on birthright citizenship, drew criticism from many in the legal community. The Court ruled federal judges do not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions that go beyond relief for individual plaintiffs in cases. It was seen as a major expansion of executive authority.
What People Are Saying
University of Massachusetts Amherst Professor Paul Collins told Newsweek: "Typically, I would suggest that the Court moderate itself, but I do not believe that is going to happen. So, I think we need to look for structural changes. I believe instituting term limits for justices is a step in the right direction, and I also believe it's time to have a serious national conversation about expanding the size of the Court. If the Court's conservatives are not going to moderate themselves, we are going to have to do it for them."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned about the court's reputation in her dissent in the case Diamond Alternatives Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency: "When courts adjust standing requirements to let certain litigants challenge the actions of the political branches but preclude suits by others with similar injuries, standing doctrine cannot perform its constraining function. Over time, such selectivity begets judicial overreach and erodes public trust in the impartiality of judicial decisionmaking. Today's ruling runs the risk of setting us down that path."
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court is currently in recess, and the new term will begin in October.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Some Social Security Recipients Will See Wage Garnishment in Just Weeks
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. In roughly 20 days, some Social Security recipients could experience wage garnishment as a higher Social Security claw back rate returns. Roughly 2 million Americans owed money to the Social Security Administration due to overpayments in 2023, according to KFF and Cox Media group. Starting July 24, the higher wage garnishments will go into effect until the full overpayment has been resolved. Why It Matters President Donald Trump has implemented a wide range of changes to the Social Security Administration (SSA). In addition to ending the use of paper checks by October, Trump also appointed former Fiserv CEO Frank Bisignano as the new SSA commissioner. The Department of Government Efficiency also instructed the agency to cut 7,000 SSA jobs. For beneficiaries who have been mistakenly overpaid, losing Social Security benefits could have severe consequences on their ability to pay for basic necessities. Roughly 21 percent of married couples and 45 percent of single recipients rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income, according to SSA estimates. A sign is seen outside a US Social Security Administration building, November 5, 2020, in Burbank, California. A sign is seen outside a US Social Security Administration building, November 5, 2020, in Burbank, California. VALERIE MACON/AFP via Getty Images What To Know In some circumstances, the SSA overpays Social Security recipients due to either miscalculations on their part or the recipient failing to update their earnings information. In March, the SSA said it would be bringing back its 100 percent claw back rate for Social Security recipients who were mistakenly overpaid by the government. During Joe Biden's presidency, that rate was set at 10 percent to allow seniors more breathing room to pay for their basic necessities. However, the SSA updated that garnishment rate to 50 percent in April. "When we determine an individual receiving Title II benefits is overpaid, we send them a notice requesting a full and immediate refund and inform them of their right to request reconsideration or a waiver of recovery," the SSA said in April. "We usually provide 90 days for the individual to request a lower rate of withholding, a reconsideration, or waiver." The 90-day period from the SSA's statement on April 25 ends July 24, meaning more than a million recipients could see their payments impacted. However, those who have been overpaid can file for an overpayment waiver. Form SSA-632BK asks for forgiveness for the overpayment if it was not your fault and it would create financial hardship. To get this approved, you'll need proof that repaying the money would create a significant hardship. Beneficiaries can also file Form SSA-561 to appeal the claim you were overpaid. Newsweek reached out to the SSA for comment via email. What People Are Saying Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "Most recipients don't realize they've been overpaid until they receive a letter from the SSA. Without regularly reviewing your earnings history and benefit statements, overpayments can go unnoticed. Even if the error wasn't your fault, you're still responsible for repayment—unless you appeal, request a waiver, or set up a payment plan within the 90-day period." What Happens Next The loss of income could be dire for many Social Security recipients who rely on the benefits for most if not all of their income. A recent report from Gallup found 86 percent rely on Social Security as a "major" or "minor" income source. "The consequences can be significant, especially for retirees living on a fixed income. With inflation still elevated, a 50 percent reduction in benefits could severely impact housing, food, and healthcare," Thompson said. "For many, Social Security is their only source of income—making these garnishments potentially devastating."
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Valadao supports Trump megabill set to disrupt healthcare for many of his constituents
Already a ripe target for Democrats in the next election, Central Valley Rep. David Valadao put his political future in deeper peril this week by voting in favor of legislation that slashes the Medicaid coverage essential to roughly two-thirds of his Republican dairy farmer from Hanford said that despite his concerns about President Trump's megabill, he voted to support it because of concessions he helped negotiate that will help his district, such as an additional $25 billion for rural hospitals, $1 billion for Western water infrastructure and agricultural preserving tax breaks benefiting the wealthy, the bill passed by narrow Republican majorities in both the House and Senate would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $1.04 trillion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What if killing Canada's digital services tax is just the beginning for Donald Trump?
OTTAWA—Call it a prudent climbdown, a show of weakness, or an unavoidable concession. There are several ways to look at Prime Minister Mark Carney's 11th-hour decision to cancel the federal government's Digital Services Tax last weekend. But what if it's also a tangible example of exactly what Carney warned would happen? The Liberal leader won a minority government on April 28 with a pitch that no one was better placed than himself to protect Canada from Donald Trump. The U.S. president has mused about using 'economic force' to annex Canada. As if taunting or teasing this country, he questions why it exists, and keeps floating the prospect of it becoming the '51st state' of the U.S. Two days before the election, Carney spelled out how he understood all of this. 'The U.S. is trying to put economic pressure on us to gain major concessions, to the extreme of a level of integration of our countries that would impinge our sovereignty,' Carney said that day in King City, north of Toronto. Carney, in his final campaign conference, ruled out any prospect the U.S. would use military Flash forward to last week. There was Trump, posting on social media that Canada's incoming Digital Services Tax — a policy that would force American tech giants and other firms, including Canadian ones, to pay up — was nothing short of a 'blatant attack' on the United States. Trump declared he had cut off all negotiations to resolve the trade war that started earlier this year with his wave of tariffs on Canadian goods. In other words, Canada's most important commercial and military partner, the destination for 76 per cent of all exports last year , was willing to ditch talks and dictate terms that could jeopardize thousands of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars in economic activity. All over a domestic policy the Americans didn't like. Barely 48 hours later, shortly before midnight on a Sunday, the government announced the tax was dead. Not only would Canada not implement the policy as planned, it would repeal the 2024 law that created it. Is this Trump using economic pressure to force Canada's hand? 'It is exactly that,' said Lawrence Herman, a veteran trade lawyer and special counsel with the firm, Cassidy Levy Kent. 'It's an example of, on a particular issue, how much pressure can be brought to bear to force Canada to abandon not only a policy, but a law that has been in force for 18 months.' In Herman's view, the decision looks like a 'significant retreat' by the government, which shows 'how dependent we are on a reasonable relationship' with Canada's largest trading partner. Other policies that Trump has complained about, such as the supply management system for dairy and poultry, could be next, he said. Pete Hoekstra, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, told the CBC this week that he has a 'strong belief' Canada could water down that system by changing a law designed to protect it if that becomes part of a new trade deal. 'It's not a particularly good start to this so-called new economic and security relationship,' Herman said. He was referring to Carney's stated goal of talks that are now continuing under an agreement struck at the Group of 7 summit in the Alberta Rockies last month to strive for a deal to redefine the relationship by July 21. Others have been harsher in their judgment. Lloyd Axworthy, a former Liberal foreign affairs minister, posted online that Carney was acquiescing to Trump in a way that contradicts his 'elbows up' mantra on the campaign trail. 'Forget any dreams of a more sovereign, self-directed Canada. We're doubling down on the corporate cosiness and U.S. dependency that's defined our last half-century,' he wrote on Substack. Axworthy did not respond to an interview request Thursday. For Jean Charest, a former Quebec premier who sits on the government's Canada-U.S. advisory council, the situation illustrates the 'chaos' of dealing with Trump, whose administration is grappling with trade talks and tariffs threats against most countries on the planet. This meant that Carney's government was operating 'in a world of very bad choices,' Charest said. Deciding to scrap the Digital Services Tax, in that context, was 'certainly a legitimate choice,' he said. 'We are not in an ordinary world of negotiations,' Charest added. 'It would be nice to think, 'You give, I give ... we compromise.' It doesn't work that way with Donald Trump, and we're making our way through this by trying to protect essentially what's the most important for us in the short term, and that's a negotiation that has some legs.' Charest noted that there was opposition inside Canada to the Digital Services Tax, which would have applied back to 2022 with a three per cent tax on Canadian revenues from digital services companies with more than $1.1 billion in global earnings and $20 million inside Canada. The U.S. also pushed back against the policy when Joe Biden was in power. David Pierce, vice-president of government relations with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said his business lobby group felt the Digital Services Tax should be paused. He also said it would have been wrong to proceed with it after the U.S. dropped a controversial provision from Trump's major budget bill last week: the so-called 'revenge tax' that would have hit the U.S. assets of foreign businesses and individuals. That decision came as the G7 agreed to exempt American firms from a co-ordinated effort to ensure corporations pay a minimum tax, which was 'absolutely a win' for the U.S. Even so, Pierce said Canada likely had no choice but to drop the policy, given Trump's exploitation of Canada's 'weakness' — its major economic reliance on trade with the U.S. 'We just hope that this now paves the way for a good renewed deal,' said Pierce. The ultimate goal of the federal government in that deal, at least publicly, has been to return to the terms of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), which Trump signed in 2018 during his first term, after disparaging North American free trade as unfair to his country. That would mean lifting the rounds of tariffs Trump has imposed since the winter, with import duties tied to concerns about drugs and migration over the border, and others that Trump slapped on Canadian autos, steel and aluminum in a bid to promote those sectors in the U.S. Canada has responded with countertariffs on its own that the government says hit more than $80 billion worth of American imports to Canada. Canada's lead trade negotiator with the Trump administration, Ambassador Kirsten Hillman, was not available for an interview this week, the embassy in Washington told the Star. Charest, however, said he believes it is possible that Canada could accept some level of tariffs in a July 21 deal, so long as they have no material effect. Such 'zero-effect' tariffs could only kick in at levels of trade that Canada doesn't or likely won't achieve, for example. Yet there's a question of how much any deal can be relied upon, so long as Trump is in the White House, unilaterally imposing tariffs that Canada views as 'illegal' violations of the 2018 trade deal. 'Trump is arguing about supply management and the (Digital Services Tax), but it's the U.S. that is in flagrant breach of its trade obligations. It's abandoned the CUSMA, virtually behaving as if it did not exist and the U.S. signature has no meaning,' Herman said. 'So we are in a world where rules and the rules-based system, and the stability that that treaty was supposed to provide, have gone by the board.' That means, at least for now, the Carney government is operating in a world where Canada's foremost ally, the colossus to the south, will use economic force to get what it wants.
