In recent months, a comprehensive nationwide survey conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania has illuminated the evolving perceptions of the American public toward the branches of government, particularly the judiciary. This Institutions of Democracy panel survey, carried out between March 6 and 16, 2025 with a representative cohort of 1,363 U.S. adults, offers a rigorous assessment of public trust and attitudes toward the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and the presidency amid a turbulent sociopolitical climate. The findings underscore the complexity of contemporary democratic engagement, revealing persistent support for checks and balances even as confidence in government institutions wanes.
Central to the survey’s findings is the stark decline in public trust toward the U.S. Supreme Court, dropping precipitously since the landmark 2022 Dobbs ruling which overturned Roe v. Wade and reshaped legal precedent concerning reproductive rights. Trust in the highest court has plummeted from 68% in 2019 to just 41% in early 2025. Notably, nearly one-third of respondents express absolute distrust that the court operates in the best interests of “people like you.” This erosion of confidence, increasing from 55% of low or no trust in May 2024 to 59% ten months later, reflects a deepening skepticism about the court’s impartiality and legitimacy.
This despondency towards the judiciary coexists with a broader dissatisfaction with the federal government. A majority of Americans—60%—feel the nation is fundamentally “on the wrong track,” coupled with a pessimistic economic outlook where 54% predict worsened conditions a year from now. These sentiments illustrate a fraught backdrop against which the legitimacy of democratic institutions is being tested. Yet, paradoxically, the survey reveals that a robust consensus endures regarding the foundational role of the courts and Congress in constraining executive authority, signifying enduring faith in the system of checks and balances.
Analytically, the survey dissects nuanced attitudes toward presidential powers, revealing that less than one-quarter of Americans support unfettered executive action. Even within the Republican base—typically more deferential to a president of their party—majorities reject the notion that the president should have unchecked authority. Across partisan lines, significant majorities oppose a president’s ability to ignore court rulings, appoint judges without Senate approval, or enact policies independently from Congress. These attitudes highlight an implicit recognition of constitutional safeguards as essential to democratic stability.
The results become even more striking when evaluating public opinions on presidential compliance with Supreme Court rulings—even in extreme scenarios involving national security. The survey shows 69% favor presidential adherence to Supreme Court decisions, a marked increase from 44% in 2007. This shift suggests an evolving preference for rule-of-law principles over unilateral executive discretion, underscoring a collective endorsement of judicial authority even when it may impinge on perceived immediate security concerns.
Concurrently, the survey documents a deterioration in perceptions of judicial ethical standards and independence. Public confidence that justices can render decisions without personal bias has markedly decreased from 59% in 2005 to just 37% in 2025, reflecting mounting public concern over the politicization of the bench. Opinions about ethical practices have also soured drastically over recent decades, with current attitudes nearly evenly split between favorable and unfavorable assessments—an inversion from the predominantly positive early 2000s outlook.
This growing public ambivalence extends beyond the Supreme Court to the broader judiciary, where trust levels remain comparatively higher for federal and state courts. Still, the survey highlights an appetite among the populace for reforms or limitations on judicial power, with significant minorities endorsing the removal of Supreme Court justices deemed perennially unpopular or advocating for curtailing the court’s jurisdiction on controversial issues. These findings suggest that while the judiciary retains institutional significance, its perceived legitimacy is increasingly contestable.
Interestingly, the survey sheds light on the civic institution of jury service as a positive counterbalance to deteriorating institutional trust. Despite a decline in the proportion of Americans reporting jury duty experience, statistical analysis indicates that participation in jury service correlates strongly with elevated trust in the courts and more favorable evaluations of judges’ competence and fairness. This nexus between direct civic engagement and trust underscores the critical educative function the judiciary can fulfill in fostering democratic legitimacy.
From a broader sociopolitical lens, the APPC findings reveal an electorate that, while disillusioned with government performance, fundamentally endorses the constitutional architecture designed to enforce accountability. The widespread support for limiting executive overreach and bolstering judicial review reflects an intrinsic valuation of democratic checks and balances as a necessary condition for political stability, even amidst partisan polarization and institutional skepticism.
Moreover, the survey’s longitudinal design facilitates a detailed examination of trust trends over nearly two decades, providing vital empirical evidence of shifting public attitudes amid political upheaval and landmark judicial decisions. The continuing decline in trust toward the Supreme Court contrasts with relatively stable or even increased trust in other institutions such as the military or scientific community, indicating a complex stratification of institutional legitimacy in the American public psyche.
In conclusion, the APPC Institutions of Democracy survey offers a sober reflection on the state of public trust in the United States’ governmental institutions. While the judiciary and Congress retain fundamental support as checks on executive power, there is an unmistakable undercurrent of apprehension about judicial impartiality and ethics. The findings underscore an imperative for democratic institutions to renew their legitimacy through transparency, civic education, and adherence to constitutional norms. As America grapples with these challenges, the enduring support for checks and balances serves as a critical bulwark against democratic erosion.
—
Subject of Research: Public trust in U.S. government institutions, with a focus on the judiciary and the Supreme Court.
Article Title: Trust in the U.S. Supreme Court and Checks on Presidential Power: Insights from the 2025 Annenberg Public Policy Center Survey
News Publication Date: April 2025
Web References:
– https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/
– https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/APPC_IOD_Topline_April_2025.pdf
– https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/the-withering-of-public-confidence-in-the-courts/
– https://www.ncsc-jurystudies.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/100896/2023-SOS_VolumeandFrequency_FINAL-2.pdf
Image Credits: Annenberg Public Policy Center
