Dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court Spans the Political Spectrum

As the Supreme Court weighed consequential issues this term, including birthright citizenship, election rules, and executive power, the public judged the Court itself. Poll after poll shows historically low approval ratings. That spells trouble for an institution whose legitimacy rests on the public’s confidence in and acceptance of its rulings.

To better understand these views, the Brennan Center organized three virtual focus groups with registered voters across the political spectrum. Between March 14 and March 16, 2026, research analyst Cora Henry spoke with a group of six participants who identified predominantly as independents, a group of seven who identified predominantly as Democrats, and a group of eight who identified as Republicans. Their discussions explored the Court’s role, its recent performance, and reform proposals such as binding ethics rules and term limits — including the Brennan Center’s proposal for 18-year terms for the justices and staggered, regularized appointments.

Perceptions of the Court were largely negative, with critiques centered on politicization, unfairness, and lifetime appointments. Recognition of the Court’s immense power to shape the country magnified those concerns. Even participants who described their views as mixed or mostly positive struggled to name specific points of praise for the current justices. These discussions came before before the Court effectively destroyed what remained of the Voting Rights Act and expanded presidential power, among other moves that could have further angered the public.

Given this widespread discontent, it comes as no surprise that proposed reforms received strong support across groups. Every participant backed term limits. Many, however, doubted that term limits alone would be a cure-all and proposed additional solutions to bring the Court closer to their ideal.

Another through line was broader dissatisfaction with democratic institutions. Participants agreed that government is not working for ordinary Americans and that the Court is only part of the problem. Disapproval of Congress was universal, and participants repeatedly said Court reform proposals — including term limits, age limits, and stricter ethical standards — should be applied to lawmakers too. They expressed widespread cynicism about corruption and a desire for greater transparency and accountability, with myriad ideas about how to achieve this. (These results echo the findings of the Brennan Center’s recent poll on corruption.)

The discussions also revealed partisan divides. Participants’ views of the Court were closely tied to their opinions of the current administration. Checks and balances sometimes proved contentious, with support for this foundational American principle wavering when pitted against partisan loyalties or frustration with the status quo.

These findings add to the mountain of evidence that Americans are eager for change — at the Court and across government. Voters of all political stripes see term limits as a promising start. Any push for change, however, will need to convince disillusioned Americans that there is a viable path to enacting and implementing reforms.

Highlights from the discussions, edited for clarity and brevity, are shared below. Explore views by party ID, participant, or topic by selecting a filter.

With thanks to Jia Zhang for her assistance with the visualizations in this piece.