WASHINGTON — A recent poll indicates that a majority of Americans believe the Supreme Court is reluctant to issue rulings against President Donald Trump, even after the justices struck down key parts of his tariff policy earlier this year. The Marquette Law School Poll, conducted this month, found that 57 percent of adults surveyed think the conservative-leaning court is avoiding decisions that Trump might ignore, a sentiment that has remained steady since a January survey.
The poll comes amid ongoing high-profile cases before the Supreme Court involving Trump's executive actions, including efforts to overhaul birthright citizenship and remove a Federal Reserve board member. Two-thirds of respondents supported the court's February decision, which ruled that Trump lacked the authority to impose broad tariffs on imports, a move that affected billions in trade. That ruling, however, did little to shift public perceptions of the court's approach to the president, according to the poll's findings.
President Trump, who has appointed three of the court's six conservative justices, expressed frustration with the bench in recent social media posts. On April 21, he wrote about birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment guarantee that grants automatic U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil:
“No Country can be successful with such an anchor wrapped firmly around its neck," Trump posted, adding, “but based on the questioning by Republican Nominated Justices that I watched firsthand in the Court, we lose.”Trump has argued that the policy burdens the nation and has sought to limit it through an executive order, requiring at least one parent to be a citizen or permanent resident.
Trump's attendance at the Supreme Court's oral arguments on April 1 marked a historic moment: He became the first sitting U.S. president to observe the court's proceedings in person. Sitting in the front row, his presence reportedly elicited muffled gasps among attendees and heightened tensions in the chamber. During the arguments, several justices appeared skeptical of Trump's ability to alter birthright citizenship via executive action alone, suggesting the 14th Amendment's protections are firmly entrenched.
Nearly 70 percent of adults polled by Marquette Law School following the arguments believe the court should declare Trump's executive order unconstitutional. Legal observers noted that the justices' questioning focused heavily on constitutional limits, with conservative appointees showing reluctance to upend longstanding precedent. One analysis of the debate highlighted six key takeaways, including the apparent doom of Trump's citizenship order and the justices' emphasis on congressional authority over such changes.
The birthright citizenship case is one of several before the court that could test Trump's executive powers. Another involves his attempt to remove Lisa Cook, a Democratic appointee, from the Federal Reserve's board of governors. Two-thirds of poll respondents want the Supreme Court to side against Trump in that dispute, viewing it as an overreach into the independent central bank's operations.
Trump has not shied away from criticizing the court, particularly those justices he helped place on the bench. He accused Republican-nominated justices of allowing themselves to be "pushed around by Democrats," a complaint echoed in his post-argument remarks. Despite appointing Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the court, Trump has grown increasingly vocal about perceived disloyalty, especially as the panel has occasionally ruled against his administration.
The February tariff decision provides important context for the current polls. In that 6-3 ruling, the court invalidated Trump's use of emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on steel, aluminum, and other goods from countries like China and the European Union. The tariffs, aimed at protecting domestic industries, had sparked trade wars and economic uncertainty. Supporters of the ruling, including business groups, praised it for reining in unilateral presidential authority, while Trump administration officials argued it hampered national security efforts.
Public support for curbing Trump's powers appears broad. The Marquette poll, which surveyed a representative sample of adults across the U.S., showed consistent majorities favoring judicial checks on executive actions. In the January survey, the same 57 percent expressed concerns about the court's avoidance of confrontations with Trump, a figure that held firm despite the tariff setback for the White House.
Legal experts have weighed in on the birthright citizenship arguments, noting the case's rarity and significance. The Supreme Court last delved deeply into the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause over a century ago, in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens. Trump's order, issued in late 2023, sought to reinterpret the clause but faced immediate legal challenges from immigrant rights groups and several states.
During the April 1 session, Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the practicality of Trump's proposal, asking how it would apply retroactively without upending millions of citizenships. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, often aligned with Trump on immigration, probed the government's legal basis but showed signs of doubt. Attendees described the atmosphere as charged, with Trump's presence adding an unprecedented layer of political theater to the usually sedate proceedings.
The Federal Reserve case adds another dimension to the court's docket. Lisa Cook, nominated by President Joe Biden and confirmed in 2022, has been a vocal advocate for policies addressing inflation and inequality. Trump's push to oust her cites performance issues, but critics argue it's retaliation for her opposition to his economic agenda. The poll's two-thirds opposition to Trump's removal effort reflects broader concerns about politicizing the Fed, an institution designed to operate free from White House interference.
As the Supreme Court term winds down, decisions in these cases are anticipated by the end of June or early July. The outcomes could reshape debates over executive power, immigration, and economic policy. For Trump, who faces re-election pressures, adverse rulings might fuel his narrative of a biased judiciary, while supporters hope for affirmations of his agenda.
The Marquette Law School Poll's results underscore a public wary of unchecked presidential authority, even from a leader with significant influence over the courts. With Trump's appointments tipping the balance toward conservatism, the justices' handling of these cases will likely influence perceptions of judicial independence for years to come. As one poll respondent anonymously told researchers, the court must demonstrate it's not afraid to uphold the Constitution, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office.
In the broader context of Trump's presidency, these legal battles highlight ongoing tensions between branches of government. Since taking office in 2025, Trump has issued numerous executive orders on immigration and trade, many of which have landed in federal courts. The Supreme Court's role as the final arbiter remains pivotal, and the upcoming rulings could either bolster or constrain his administration's ambitions through the end of his term.