Defending the Supreme Court's Constitutional Role Amid Falling Polls

The Supreme Court’s job is not to follow public opinion, but to interpret the Constitution and federal law. Its approval rating hitting a record low is less a measure of failure and more a reflection of the country’s political polarization. The Court has handed down decisions that anger both sides—often because it upholds principles that are unpopular in the short term. For instance, rulings on free speech, religious liberty, and federal power do not always align with majority sentiment, but they protect fundamental rights. The Court’s independence from electoral pressure is a feature, not a bug. The current low approval may simply mean that the Court is doing its job in a divided era, where any major ruling will displease a large segment of the public. Moreover, approval ratings are volatile and can rebound quickly when the docket becomes less contentious. The Court has weathered similar dips before, including after the Bush v. Gore decision. Critics calling for ethics reform or court expansion risk undermining the very independence that the judiciary needs. The proper response is to defend the Court’s integrity and let the legal process work without political interference. Americans may disagree with particular rulings, but the institution itself remains a vital check on executive and legislative overreach.