U.S. Supreme Court's Favorability Rating Hits Record Low

Matthew Mangino
Tue, 21 Apr 2026 10:40:46 -0700
Opinion

The U.S. Supreme Court's favorable rating is at its lowest point since regular polling of the court began in the early 1970s. Last year, the court's favorable rating fell to 42%.

The modern highwater mark for the court was 1999, when, according to Gallup, the court was viewed favorably by 80% of Americans. Then the 2000 presidential election rolled around and the high court ruled along partisan lines to award the presidential election to George W. Bush over Al Gore.

The Supreme Court has never rebounded. The high court has come under scrutiny, while some of its members have become blatantly political. Justice Samuel Alito flew an upside-down flag over his home and an "Appeal to Heaven" flag over his vacation home — both with political implications. Justice Clarence Thomas' wife has become an outspoken right-wing political operative.
Updated: Tue Apr 21, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court's favorable rating is at its lowest point since regular polling of the court began in the early 1970s. Last year, the court's favorable rating fell to 42%.

The modern highwater mark for the court was 1999, when, according to Gallup, the court was viewed favorably by 80% of Americans. Then the 2000 presidential election rolled around and the high court ruled along partisan lines to award the presidential election to George W. Bush over Al Gore.

The Supreme Court has never rebounded. The high court has come under scrutiny, while some of its members have become blatantly political. Justice Samuel Alito flew an upside-down flag over his home and an "Appeal to Heaven" flag over his vacation home — both with political implications. Justice Clarence Thomas' wife has become an outspoken right-wing political operative.

Adam Liptak and Jodi Kantor of The New York Times recently did an expose on the high court's secret decisions — rulings with no explanation or reasoning — an emergency docket rendering decisions in the shadow of the courtroom of the Supreme Court's building.

According to Liptak and Kantor, in 2016, several justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, were eager to block a major initiative of former President Barack Obama. By a 5-to-4 vote along partisan lines, the Supreme Court halted the Clean Power Plan, Obama's signature environmental policy. The decision consisted of only legal boilerplate, without a word of reasoning — thus was born the "Shadow Docket."

Could the shadow docket be the product of conflicting personalities at the highest level of government? Liptak and Kantor point out that Obama, as a United States Senator, was one of just 22 senators to vote against Chief Justice Roberts's confirmation. Obama said at the time, the nominee had "far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak."

As Liptak and Kantor pointed out, traditionally the Supreme Court had "handled major cases at a stately pace that encouraged care and deliberation, relying on written briefs, oral arguments and in-person discussions. The justices composed detailed opinions that explained their thinking to the public and rendered judgment only after other courts had weighed in."

In the 1960s, when the court was held in high esteem, decisions were made precisely that way. Chief Justice Earl Warren oversaw a deliberative body whose decisions are synonymous with individual rights, often taken for granted today.

The "liberal" Warren Court gave us Brown v. Board of Education and, within the five-year period between 1961 and 1966, gave America Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright and Mapp v. Ohio.

In Mapp v. Ohio, the high court ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against illegal searches and seizures cannot be used in court. This decision did more to improve police work and protect the public from overzealous police officers than any decision in modern history.

Gideon v. Wainwright ensured that all defendants charged with serious felonies have the right to counsel, even if they could not afford to hire their own. This decision created the era of public defense and ensured that anyone accused of a crime would not be forced to defend themselves against the resources of the state.

Miranda v. Arizona established "Miranda Rights." A decision so ingrained in the consciousness of viewers of American crime dramas that just about everyone can recite the warning, "You have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney if you can't afford one, one will be appointed for you."

These decisions, though controversial, were not delivered in secret. They were briefed by learned lawyers, argued before the court and the decisions were thoughtful and deliberate. There were powerful dissents — and each of those decisions, some 60 years later, is still the law of the land.

That is how a court builds trust with the public.