A new poll demonstrates that U.S. voters across all political viewpoints support implementing reforms to the federal Supreme Court, including limits on how long justices can serve and an ethics code that is actually enforceable.
The poll, conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, was published last week. It found that 68 percent of Americans supported imposing term limits on justices, ending the practice of allowing justices to serve lifetime appointments. Only 17 percent of voters were against the idea.
Support for this reform transcended political ideology, with 79 percent support from Democratic voters and 58 percent support from Republican voters. Sixty-one percent of independent voters also liked the reform.
The poll also asked about “creating a formal ethics code for U.S. Supreme Court justices that allows for justices to be investigated if they are accused of an ethical violation.” On that question there was even greater support, with 77 percent of Americans backing the proposal and only 8 percent saying they would oppose it.
An additional reform allowing voters to have a “check” on the Supreme Court received plurality support: allowing the public to overturn controversial decisions made by the court in national elections, which garnered support from nearly 1 in 2 voters (47 percent). Just over a third of voters were opposed.
While some issues arguably shouldn’t be put to a vote — including matters involving human rights — the response rate on that question indicates that the American public is growing deeply dissatisfied with the Supreme Court, as it has rendered a number of unpopular, far right decisions in recent years, and its members are embroiled in several scandals. Indeed, a Gallup poll from July found that only 43 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the court, while a majority, 52 percent, disapprove. That approval rating is a 15-point drop from how Americans viewed the institution just four years ago.
Some justices of the court, perhaps recognizing that public opinion on the Court has waned considerably in recent years, have been outspoken in support of some reforms. Justice Elena Kagan, for example, has twice over the summer expressed support for creating a binding ethics code.
The Supreme Court established a stronger ethics code last fall but refused to create a way in which it could be implemented — as it is right now, justices themselves determine whether they have committed an ethics violation or not. Last week, Kagan said it would be “a good idea” to create a mechanism independent of justices to enforce the code.
“It seems like a good idea in terms of ensuring that we comply with our own code of conduct going forward in the future. It seems like a good idea in terms of ensuring that people have confidence that we’re doing exactly that,” Kagan said while speaking at a New York University event last week.
Her statement echoed one she made at a speaking engagement in July, when she said:
Rules usually have enforcement mechanisms attached to them, and this one, this set of rules, does not. … However hard it is, we could and should try to figure out some mechanism for doing this.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has similarly expressed openness to creating an enforcement mechanism for the court’s ethics code, noting that lower court judges in the judiciary are subjected to such terms.
“I think the question is whether there’s something about the Supreme Court that would make it different than the binding ethics rules that exist in the lower courts. At least up to this point, I haven’t seen any good reason why there shouldn’t be binding rules,” Jackson said in a recent NPR interview. “But so far, we’re not there.”
The Supreme Court has indeed faced numerous ethics scandals in recent years. The public has raised questions regarding Justice Samuel Alito’s decision not to recuse in cases involving former President Donald Trump and his associates, despite flying flags in front of his homes that signal support for Trump and Christian nationalism. Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas has failed to report millions of dollars in gifts from wealthy conservative benefactors, and has ruled in cases where those benefactors have had vested interests in the outcomes.
Help us Prepare for Trump’s Day One
Trump is busy getting ready for Day One of his presidency – but so is Truthout.
Trump has made it no secret that he is planning a demolition-style attack on both specific communities and democracy as a whole, beginning on his first day in office. With over 25 executive orders and directives queued up for January 20, he’s promised to “launch the largest deportation program in American history,” roll back anti-discrimination protections for transgender students, and implement a “drill, drill, drill” approach to ramp up oil and gas extraction.
Organizations like Truthout are also being threatened by legislation like HR 9495, the “nonprofit killer bill” that would allow the Treasury Secretary to declare any nonprofit a “terrorist-supporting organization” and strip its tax-exempt status without due process. Progressive media like Truthout that has courageously focused on reporting on Israel’s genocide in Gaza are in the bill’s crosshairs.
As journalists, we have a responsibility to look at hard realities and communicate them to you. We hope that you, like us, can use this information to prepare for what’s to come.
And if you feel uncertain about what to do in the face of a second Trump administration, we invite you to be an indispensable part of Truthout’s preparations.
In addition to covering the widespread onslaught of draconian policy, we’re shoring up our resources for what might come next for progressive media: bad-faith lawsuits from far-right ghouls, legislation that seeks to strip us of our ability to receive tax-deductible donations, and further throttling of our reach on social media platforms owned by Trump’s sycophants.
We’re preparing right now for Trump’s Day One: building a brave coalition of movement media; reaching out to the activists, academics, and thinkers we trust to shine a light on the inner workings of authoritarianism; and planning to use journalism as a tool to equip movements to protect the people, lands, and principles most vulnerable to Trump’s destruction.
We urgently need your help to prepare. As you know, our December fundraiser is our most important of the year and will determine the scale of work we’ll be able to do in 2025. We’ve set two goals: to raise $150,000 in one-time donations and to add 1,500 new monthly donors by midnight on December 31.
Today, we’re asking all of our readers to start a monthly donation or make a one-time donation – as a commitment to stand with us on day one of Trump’s presidency, and every day after that, as we produce journalism that combats authoritarianism, censorship, injustice, and misinformation. You’re an essential part of our future – please join the movement by making a tax-deductible donation today.
If you have the means to make a substantial gift, please dig deep during this critical time!
With gratitude and resolve,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy