Nearly half of Americans now believe that the Supreme Court is deciding cases involving President Trump’s policies based on ideology rather than on the law, according to a recent Washington Post/Ipsos poll. Conducted between July 8 and 13, 2026, the survey of 2,648 respondents paints a striking portrait of public skepticism toward the nation’s highest court—at a moment when its decisions have profound implications for the powers of the presidency and the future of federal agencies.
The poll’s findings, reported by The Washington Post and SCOTUSblog, reveal that 46 percent of Americans see the nine justices as driven by political views when ruling on Trump administration policies. Only 25 percent believe the court is deciding cases based on the law, while 28 percent had no opinion and 1 percent skipped the question. These numbers reflect some of the lowest approval ratings for the court in recent memory, with 55 percent disapproving of its overall performance and just 41 percent approving. The margin of error for the survey was 1.9 percentage points.
These sentiments have not emerged in a vacuum. The Supreme Court’s most recent term, which ended in late June 2026, was marked by a series of high-profile rulings that have split public opinion and fueled debate about the court’s independence. The court delivered multiple setbacks to President Trump: in February, it struck down emergency tariffs he imposed on imports in 2025, ruling that he lacked the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Then, in June, the justices invalidated Trump’s Day 1 executive order restricting birthright citizenship, a decision that prompted a lengthy, 91-page dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas, who was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Justice Thomas’s dissent in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, delved deeply into his views about American identity and the Fourteenth Amendment, according to SCOTUSblog. The majority’s decision was not without controversy, and the case itself even saw a post-release correction: a quote initially attributed to “Senator Reverdy Williams” was amended to “Senator George Williams” after legal observers caught the error. Such opinion revisions are not uncommon, as the justices—despite rigorous editing—occasionally find the need to correct or clarify their rulings. As of July 14, 2026, revisions had been made in nine cases from the current term, ranging from minor grammatical tweaks to more substantive changes, all carefully supervised by the court’s Reporter of Decisions.
Yet, not all recent Supreme Court decisions have gone against Trump. In a 6-3 ruling that fell along ideological lines, the court allowed the president to fire Democrat Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), overturning the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor v. United States precedent that had long provided a measure of independence to certain executive agencies. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent and joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, warned that the decision granted “far greater power than ever before” to Trump and future presidents over federal agencies. “It is undeniable, however, that those agencies will be transformed in ways that those who created them never could have expected and actively sought to avoid, fundamentally recalibrating the balance of power in this country in the process,” Sotomayor wrote.
For Trump, the ruling was a major victory. After the court’s term ended, he called the decision the “biggest and most consequential” of the term. The ruling effectively gives the president increased authority over the administrative state, a development that has been both cheered and criticized depending on one’s political perspective.
The poll results underscore the deep partisan divide over the Supreme Court’s role and legitimacy. According to The Washington Post, 75 percent of Democrats disapprove of the court’s performance, while 67 percent of Republicans approve. This polarization reflects broader trends in American politics, where the judiciary has become a focal point for ideological battles over everything from executive power to individual rights.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has continued to seek ways to implement its policy agenda despite judicial setbacks. After the Supreme Court ruled in February that Trump could not use emergency powers to impose tariffs, his administration quickly pivoted to other legal avenues. As reported by the Associated Press, Trump turned to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose global tariffs, but those are set to expire on July 24 unless Congress extends them. With extension unlikely, the administration is now looking to Section 301 of the same act, which allows for more durable tariffs against countries engaging in “unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory” trade practices. Trade attorneys and analysts expect the administration to beat the clock and replace the soon-to-expire tariffs with new ones before the looming deadline.
The Supreme Court’s recent term has also been notable for its internal debates and the willingness of state courts to push back against its precedents. In a widely discussed opinion, the Hawaii Supreme Court included a nine-page critique of the U.S. Supreme Court, questioning its positions on issues ranging from voting rights to religious liberty and the removal power. As highlighted by National Review, the Hawaii court asserted, “When six justices walk away from those they are supposed to protect, state constitutions hold the line. That is not defiance. That is the design. State constitutionalism makes it easy to consider Roberts Court jurisprudence ‘white noise.’” Legal observers suggest that such state-level defiance could become more common as the Supreme Court issues more contentious decisions.
Beyond the headlines, the court’s work continues to be shaped by its own traditions and the personalities of its justices. The passing of Johnny Brown, father of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, was noted in the Miami Herald, with Jackson crediting her father’s legal career for inspiring her own path to the bench. Meanwhile, the process of revising and perfecting Supreme Court opinions remains a little-known but crucial aspect of the institution’s work, one that ensures the official record reflects the justices’ true intent—even if it occasionally means correcting a typo or clarifying a legal principle after the fact.
As the dust settles on another Supreme Court term, the nation’s highest court faces a public increasingly wary of its motivations and decisions. Whether the justices can restore trust in their impartiality—or whether perceptions of partisanship will continue to grow—remains a question for the next term and beyond.