logo
Gilbert: Can Trump ignore the courts? Here's what polling shows Americans think

Gilbert: Can Trump ignore the courts? Here's what polling shows Americans think

Yahooa day ago

Almost every day now, a new ruling arrives from the federal courts over President Donald Trump's assertion of powers that have not been claimed or used by presidents before him.
Some of those rulings have gone Trump's way. Some have gone against him, leading the president and his deputies to lash out at the judiciary and accuse it of overreaching.
How does the American public view the simmering Constitutional conflicts between the executive and judicial branches?
It's an evolving story, but the polls suggest that in some important ways the public stands more solidly behind the courts than it does the president.
Consider these findings from the most recent nationwide poll by the Marquette Law School, taken last month and released May 21:
∎ Americans overwhelmingly recognize the judiciary's role in determining the legality of a president's actions. Asked, 'If the Supreme Court rules against the president in a case, does the president have the power to ignore that ruling, or is the president required to do as the ruling says?' Eighty-four percent of adults say the president must obey the court's ruling.
∎ Asked if court orders temporarily blocking some of Trump's executive actions are a proper use of judicial authority, almost two-thirds (64%) say, 'Yes.'
∎ Asked about Trump's call for the impeachment of federal judges who have ruled against some of his spending freezes and closures of federal agencies, 70% say these judges should not be impeached for such rulings.
∎ Asked about two high-profile immigration-related rulings — one ordering the administration to facilitate the return of a man erroneously deported to El Salvador and the other requiring due process for those being deported — well over 60% of adults supported the high court's rulings against the Trump Administration.
On some of these questions, not surprisingly, there is a split between Republicans and people outside the president's party (independents and Democrats). But on others, even Republicans support the courts.
Take the broad question of whether Trump can ignore the Supreme Court. There is notably little partisan difference on this: 78% of Republicans, 78% of independents and 93% of Democrats say the president is required to do as the ruling says.
Viewed one way, this is not an earth-shattering result. After all, the Constitution gives the courts the authority to decide on the legality of the president's actions. This is plain old civics.
But viewed another way, it is a pretty powerful statement, because it is so uncommon these days to find this much agreement across party lines on any high-profile conflict involving this extremely polarizing president.
In other words, the prospect of a president ignoring the courts is unappealing even to Trump's core supporters. Of adults who 'strongly approve' of the job Trump is doing, less than a quarter say the president can ignore a Supreme Court ruling, while 76% say he is required to do as the ruling says.
On some other questions, a majority of Republicans take Trump's side in these collisions. But even in those cases, support for Trump's position falls far short of his overall approval rating within his party (almost 90%). Instead, a very sizable minority of self-identified Republicans side with the judiciary.
Roughly 40% of Republicans say that federal court orders blocking some of Trump's executive actions are a proper use of judicial authority.
In the two immigration cases cited above, about 40% of Republicans support the Supreme Court's rulings against Trump. And almost half of Republicans (46%) oppose the call by Trump and his deputies to impeach federal judges who have ruled against the president.
One other thing to keep in mind about public opinion in this area is that the Supreme Court is more popular than the president. The court has a net positive rating, Trump has a net negative rating: 53% of adults nationwide approve of the court's performance, while 46% approve of Trump's performance, according to this recent Marquette poll.
The court's approval has risen since 2024, while Trump's has declined from its high point at the beginning of his term in January.
The court, which has issued rulings in recent years that have pleased (and outraged) both parties, is also far less polarizing than the president. It gets positive ratings from Republicans, who understand that most of the court's members were appointed by GOP presidents. And while it gets much lower ratings from Democrats, those numbers have been improving as the court has come under fire from Trump. The Supreme Court's approval rating among Democrats rose from 19% in January to 31% in May.
The polling doesn't tell us how future rulings, or further attacks by Trump on judges, or a deeper constitutional conflict between the president and the courts might affect the public's views of the judiciary in the months and years ahead.
It is possible Trump could drive down support for the court within his own party (the polling finds that Republican support is higher for impeaching judges when Trump personally is advocating it than when it is simply members of Congress doing so, a sign of Trump's personal power to move Republican sentiment).
But further attacks by Trump on judges are also likely to increase support for the courts outside the president's political base.
In Marquette's past four national surveys dating back to last fall, the polling has consistently shown that a huge majority of Americans recognize the courts' role in refereeing disputes over executive power.
And so far, that has not been dented by the president's attacks on the courts' actions, motivations and authority.
Craig Gilbert provides Wisconsin political analysis as a fellow with Marquette University Law School's Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education. Prior to the fellowship, Gilbert reported on politics for 35 years at the Journal Sentinel, the last 25 in its Washington Bureau. His column continues that independent reporting tradition and goes through the established Journal Sentinel editing process.Follow him on Twitter: @Wisvoter.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Trump defying the courts? Here's where the public stands in polling

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Sen. Mark Green's retirement leaves open field for Republicans, a 'longshot' for Democrats
Sen. Mark Green's retirement leaves open field for Republicans, a 'longshot' for Democrats

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Sen. Mark Green's retirement leaves open field for Republicans, a 'longshot' for Democrats

Tennessee is expected to see a special election later this year to replace U.S. Rep. Mark Green, R-Tennessee, and political experts say it could bring an open field of Republican candidates. Regardless of who runs for Green's seat, experts say it would likely be a 'longshot' for any Democratic candidates as the district has a strong Republican hold. Green on June 9 announced his resignation from the 7th Congressional District, just months after his reelection, to pursue an opportunity in the private sector. His district represents a swath of rural counties in middle and west Tennessee, as well as Montgomery County and parts of Davidson and Williamson counties. 'It is with a heavy heart that I announce my retirement from Congress," he said in a statement. "Recently, I was offered an opportunity in the private sector that was too exciting to pass up. As a result, today I notified the Speaker and the House of Representatives that I will resign from Congress as soon as the House votes once again on the reconciliation package." His office didn't respond to an interview request; it's unclear what the private sector opportunity is. Republicans hope to pass what President Donald Trump calls his 'big, beautiful bill' by July 4. If Green vacates his seat after voting on the bill, the state could see a special election this fall. Under Tennessee law, Gov. Bill Lee must order a special election within 10 days of Green's resignation and set a primary election date within 55 to 60 days. The state would then set a subsequent general election within 100 to 107 days. Green was reelected in November. His term expires in January 2027. Green, a 60-year-old doctor and military veteran who lives in Clarksville, was first elected to his seat in 2018. He announced in February 2024 that he would not seek a fourth term, characterizing the country and Congress as nearly irreversibly broken. He changed his mind after a flurry of calls from fellow Republicans and a personal appeal from Trump. John Geer, a longtime political science professor at Vanderbilt University, speculated that Republicans, without any other strong candidates, asked Green to reconsider as he was set to fight off a challenge from former Nashville Mayor Megan Barry. 'They might have been worried a little bit that Megan Barry might win,' he said. Geer said it's unclear who would run for his seat now, but any new candidate will be quickly bolstered by Lee and U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee. A typical low turnout for special elections could help a Democratic candidate, but Geer said it will depend on the political climate later this year, and the climate is changing fast. 'It's a longshot, but if the public is really angry and there is a Democrat that is viewed as a moderate, there could be a chance,' he said. Kent Syler, a political science and public policy professor at Middle Tennessee State University, said Barry ran a spirited and well-funded campaign against Green but still had relatively low turnout at 38%. Syler said Tennessee's 7th Congressional District contains an interesting mix of urban, suburban and rural voters, which poses a challenge for Democrats since they typically do better in urban areas. 'That dynamic will make it very difficult for a Democrat to take this seat,' he said. 'That being said, this race is going to be far more about Donald Trump than it is about the two candidates.' Green serves as chair of the Homeland Security Committee, and it's unclear how his departure will impact a Congressional investigation into Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell for allegedly obstructing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity. The investigation is set to be led by the House Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees. A former U.S. Army major, Green was first elected to office in the Tennessee General Assembly, where Trump tapped him in 2017 to serve as Secretary of the Army. The move, however, sparked a backlash over comments he made about LGBTQ+ groups and Muslim religious practices. Green has said comments were misconstrued, but he withdrew his candidacy. During his time in Congress, Green was an advocate for legislation affecting U.S. soldiers and veterans. His first bill after being sworn into Congress was the Protecting Gold Star Spouses Act to allow Coast Guard Gold Star Spouses to continue receiving stipends via the Survivor Benefits Plan. He advocated against the mandated COVID-19 vaccine for military members and fought for those who did not comply to be honorably discharged. Tennessee and Montgomery County Republicans have praised his service as news of his retirement spread. Tennessee GOP Chairman Scott Golden said Green was both a friend to him and the Republican Party. "Congressman Mark Green is a true American patriot,' Golden said. 'He has served in the Army, served as a doctor, served Tennessee in the State Senate, and served our Country in Congress.' Aron Maberry, freshman representative in the Tennessee General Assembly, commended Green's work. "Mark has really fought hard for District 7 and has done a lot of great things in Washington, D.C., and stood with our president," Maberry said. "I'm thankful for his services to our nation, in Tennessee and Montgomery County." This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Sen. Mark Green's retirement leaves open field for Republicans and a 'longshot' for Democrats

Fact Check: Are Marines Refusing to Go to Los Angeles?
Fact Check: Are Marines Refusing to Go to Los Angeles?

Newsweek

time20 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Fact Check: Are Marines Refusing to Go to Los Angeles?

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Posts on social media suggest Marines are refusing to enter Los Angeles during protests and rioting, but there is no evidence to suggest that is the case. Protests in L.A. against immigration enforcement began on Friday and are continuing, resulting in some isolated incidents of violence and looting. Tensions escalated when, in response, President Donald Trump announced the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to restore order, without the consent of California Governor Gavin Newsom. On Monday he said 2,000 more guardsmen would be deployed, as well as active-duty U.S. Marines. L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said the use of troops was unnecessary and counterproductive. Newsom in response filed an emergency motion to block this deployment. A judge rejected this request. A curfew has been imposed in parts of the city. Los Angeles Police Department officers push protesters toward Little Tokyo in downtown LA, Calif., on June 9, 2025. Los Angeles Police Department officers push protesters toward Little Tokyo in downtown LA, Calif., on June 9, 2025. Photo by Caylo Seals/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images The Claim A number of posts on social media suggested that 700 Marines did not go to Los Angeles despite Trump's call. One post, which at the time of writing had been viewed more than 380,000 times, said: "The fact that 700 Marines didn't actually show is a bigger deal than a lot of people are acting, imo [in my opinion.] The same social media user later posted: "It's commanding officers refusing to cooperate with the Secretary of Defense's orders." The Facts However, the social media accusations appear to be based on misunderstanding of a report by Fox News' chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin. She posted on X that Marines ordered to help had not yet arrived because they were undergoing training. This is not akin to Marines refusing to cooperate with orders. A CBS News report also said that 700 Marines arrived in the area and were ready to be deployed. Reuters said they were in a staging area in Seal Beach, about 50 km south of L.A. And a New York Times report cited a U.S. Northern Command spokeswoman who reportedly said the Marines will work alongside 2,100 National Guard members who are already in the city and are expected to be deployed on Wednesday. The spokeswoman told the publication the troops would not be involved in making arrests. The Ruling False. While it appears to be true that at the time of posting on social media, Marines had not arrived in L.A, this is because of training schedules and other scheduling choices, and not because they had refused to serve or comply with orders. Newsweek contacted the Pentagon and the White House outside of normal business hours to comment on this story. FACT CHECK BY Newsweek

'Coward' Elon Musk Mocked On His Own Platform After Bending The Knee To Trump
'Coward' Elon Musk Mocked On His Own Platform After Bending The Knee To Trump

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

'Coward' Elon Musk Mocked On His Own Platform After Bending The Knee To Trump

Elon Musk went into damage-control mode early Wednesday as he tried to mend fences with President Donald Trump after their spectacular falling-out last week. And his critics are mocking his public show of fealty on his own platform. Musk spent some $291 million during the 2024 election cycle, most notably to help Trump, according to and became a constant presence by his side. Once in office, Trump put Musk in charge of the 'DOGE' initiative to cut government spending. But Musk left his role, attacked Trump's signature 'big beautiful bill' as a 'disgusting abomination,' and went scorched-earth against his one-time ally in a series of posts on X last week. Musk wrote that Trump won't release the files of late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein because the president is named in them, shared a post in support of impeaching Trump and replacing him with Vice President JD Vance, and floated the creation of a third political party. Trump in turn threatened repercussions for Musk's businesses and warned him of 'serious consequences' if he backed Democrats for office. But Musk blinked on Wednesday. He wrote that he regretted some of his posts about Trump and said some of them 'went too far.' He also deleted many of those messages. His critics fired back:

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store