Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Is the rule of law in trouble? If so, judges could be the problem.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The results of a new Gallup poll offer alarming evidence of a serious erosion of confidence in the American judicial system. And if that was not enough of a signal, a survey done by Monmouth University delivered more bad news for people concerned about the rule of law in this country.

It found that almost a quarter of the American public would not be “bothered at all” if the president suspended some “laws and constitutional provisions.” Another quarter would only be bothered “a little.”

Reading these results, I was reminded of the quote from the Pogo comic: “We have met the enemy, and it is us.”


As commentators from Alexander Hamilton to the present have said, the rule of law can only survive if the people have faith that it is applied impartially and equally and that everyone will follow the rules, even when it is inconvenient for them to do so. Faith — that is the right word.

Hamilton understood this.

In Federalist 78, he predicted that the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.” The judiciary, he argued, would “have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The quality of that judgment, he continued, “may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of public justice and public security.”

In Federalist 22, Hamilton noted that unless people have faith in judges and respect their judgments, “laws are a dead letter.”

Four years ago, the National Judicial Council, echoing Hamilton, offered advice for people new to the bench. “As a judge,” it said, “you have no ability to enforce the decisions you make. … If you sentence someone to jail, you have no power to make certain that sentence is carried out.”

That is why the council described the power of courts as “fragile” and concluded that the rule of law depends on the willingness of “good people” to “follow the law because that is what good people do.”

The new surveys highlight that fragility and document a dramatic loss of faith in the courts and the rule of law among “good people” in the United States. Let’s start with Gallup.

It summarizes its major findings: “Americans’ confidence in their nation’s judicial system and courts dropped to a record-low 35% in 2024. The result further sets the U.S. apart from other wealthy nations, where a majority, on average, still expresses trust in an institution that relies largely on the public’s confidence to protect its authority and independence.”

“Since 2020,” Gallup continues, “confidence in the courts … has seen a sharp decline -- 24 percentage points.” In fact, the only nations that have seen anything close to such a precipitous decline are “Myanmar (from 2018 to 2022) overlapping the return to military rule in 2021, Venezuela (2012-2016) amid deep economic and political turmoil, and Syria (2009-2013) in the runup to and early years of civil war, and others that have experienced their own kinds of disorder in the past two decades.”

That’s some company for a nation supposedly steeped in the traditions Hamilton initiated.

The bad news does not end there. Gallup reports: "The judiciary stands out for losing more U.S. public confidence than many other U.S. institutions experienced between 2020 and 2024.”

Things don’t look much better in the Monmouth survey. It found stark partisan divides in what respondents would think if the president disregarded the “laws and constitutional provisions to go after political enemies.” Just over one-third of Republicans said, “It wouldn’t bother them at all if Trump suspended some laws and constitutional provisions to go after political enemies, while an additional 34% said it would only bother them ‘a little’ if the incoming president took such a step.”

But, as The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake notes, it isn’t only Republicans who have these views. Trump-leaning independents have also shifted significantly. “Overall, the percentage of independents who say they would be bothered a lot if Trump targeted his enemies has dropped from 68 percent in June, to 60 percent in October, to 55 percent today.”

These results are partially attributable to the fact that the question Monmouth asked named Donald Trump as the person who might suspend the law.

An Ipsos poll done last spring did not refer to Trump when it asked whether “a strong president … should be allowed to rule without too much interference from courts and Congress.” Even so, 52 percent of Republicans said yes.

The Gallup results help explain why many Americans would be okay with presidential departures from the rule of law. If people aren’t confident in courts or have lost faith in the judgments they make, it is hardly surprising that they might be open to such defiance.

Why does the United States find itself in this grim situation?

Many factors could be cited, including questionable ethical judgments by Supreme Court Justices, unpopular judicial decisions, and partisan attacks on courts and judges.

But here, I’d like to suggest that the judiciary has not helped itself in the way it goes about its business. Take the nation’s highest court.

As the journalist Kevin Drumm puts it, “The Supreme Court has always been political, but … it [has never] been so nakedly political.” Drumm is right to say, “They barely even bother trying to hide it.”

In the lower courts, similar things are happening. For example, Alma Cohen of Harvard Law School has shown that “the judges’ political affiliations, inferred from the party of the appointing president, can be used as a predictive tool for decision outcomes in 92% of the circuit court decisions studied.”

And do you think it is an accident that Republican litigants have beat a path to Amarillo, Texas, to get their cases heard by federal District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer calls the MAGA movement’s “favorite judge”? Judge shopping is hardly one-sided. For years, liberals tried to get cases heard in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which was notorious for the leftward tilt of its decisions.

The American public has gotten the message. More than six in 10 now say that “politics, not law” explains Supreme Court decisions.

Finally, why should anyone respect the court or its justices when they don’t display respect for each other in their written opinions? Just read what Justice Samuel Alito said about the justices who had decided Roe v Wade, which he called “egregiously wrong from the start.”

He accused them of “usurp[ing] the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves for the people.” Or recall Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s suggestion that the court is putting its survival in peril by making decisions that “are just political acts."

Ultimately, we cannot snap our fingers and restore public confidence in courts and faith in the rule of law. But we can call on judges at every level of the court system to stop digging the hole any deeper.

The new polling results should be a wake-up call and a reminder that unless they behave in ways that inspire, rather than undermine, belief in the fairness of their rulings, “good people” may conclude that the rule of law is a hoax. And that is a stepping-stone to authoritarianism.

Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.

Read More

Just the Facts: Courts’ Actions Against the Trump Administration

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at the Justice Department March 14, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Just the Facts: Courts’ Actions Against the Trump Administration

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

How many legal actions have been filed against the Trump administration since January 2025?

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands outside of bars.
Getty Images, stevanovicigor

Double Standard: Investing in Animal Redemption While Ignoring Human Rehabilitation

America and countries abroad have mastered the art of taming wild animals—training the most vicious killers, honing killer instincts, and even domesticating animals born for the hunt. Wild animals in this country receive extensive resources to facilitate their reintegration into society.

Americans spent more than $150 billion on their pets in 2024, with an estimated spending projection of $200 million by 2030. Millions of dollars are poured into shelters, rehabilitation programs, and veterinary care, as shown by industry statistics on animal welfare spending. Television ads and commercials plead for their adoption. Stray animal hotlines operate 24/7, ensuring immediate rescue services. Pet parks, relief stations in airports, and pageant shows showcase animals as celebrities.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a judge hammering a gavel
Chris Collins/Getty Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Impeaching Judges Who Rule Against Trump

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.

Federal judges have ruled against Trump on issues including immigrant deportations, transgender healthcare information, and Elon Musk’s DOGE. Should they be impeached?

Keep ReadingShow less
New Law Will Likely Harm Immigrant Survivors of Domestic Violence

A person's speech bubble being popped.

Getty Images, Malte Mueller

New Law Will Likely Harm Immigrant Survivors of Domestic Violence

A tragic death sparked national attention, turning into a call to strengthen immigration enforcement to enhance public safety. In response, the Laken Riley Act emerged as a significant piece of legislation in the ongoing debate over immigration policy in the United States. It purports to provide protection from crime but, in fact, could have an especially negative impact on survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

The new law allows for the detention of individuals who lack legal status, even if they have only been arrested or charged with minor offenses like theft or burglary. Notably, conviction is not required. This blatantly undermines the fundamental principle of "innocent until proven guilty," eroding due process protections that keep innocent people from being incarcerated, separated from children and family, losing employment, and suffering mental and physical health consequences.

Keep ReadingShow less