FACTCHECK: Supreme Court approval rating at an all-time low, according to Gallup

From 79% to 58%—a drop of twenty-one points

Republican support for the Court has fallen from 79% in September 2025 to 58% today—a drop of twenty-one points in less than a year, according to UPI and The Hill. This figure is corroborated by two separate news sources, which strengthens its reliability compared to a figure based on a single chain of sources. A loss of twenty-one points within its own political camp. This is no longer erosion; it is a rupture.

This decline can be partly explained by Court decisions deemed unfavorable to certain conservatives during the 2025–2026 session, notably the temporary block on the dismissal of Fed Chair Lisa Cook, according to CNBC. This is not a generalized disappointment: it is a specific reaction to identifiable decisions.

Independents and Democrats: Support at All-Time Lows

Support among independents remains stable at 35%, and among Democrats at 12%, both near their respective all-time lows, according to UPI. This stability contrasts with the sharp decline on the Republican side: it indicates that the overall drop in approval of the Court is driven primarily by disillusionment among an electorate that, historically, has supported it most strongly.

This asymmetry deserves to be highlighted in any serious fact-check of this poll: the decline is not uniform across political camps; it is concentrated among a specific group whose institutional attachment appears to be eroding faster than that of others.

Decisions that have disappointed each side in turn

The Supreme Court’s 2025–2026 term yielded mixed results, difficult to reduce to a single partisan narrative. It has, for now, blocked the removal of Lisa Cook from the Fed; it has struck down tariffs imposed under the IEEPA; and it has overturned an executive order restricting the right to citizenship by birth—three decisions perceived as unfavorable to some conservatives, according to CNBC. Three decisions in one direction. The side that expected an unconditional ally was in for a surprise.

But the same session also yielded victories for the Trump administration, notably the recognition of the president’s authority to remove the heads of independent federal agencies in the case of Trump v. Slaughter, according to the Mackinac Center. This mixed record complicates any simplistic interpretation of the Gallup poll as a mere rebuke from one camp against the other.

Why This Mixed Record Is Not Enough to Explain the Drop

If the Court had issued rulings uniformly favorable to a single side, the decline observed among the opposing side would have been predictable. The fact that Republican support is falling sharply despite significant victories for the Trump administration suggests that other factors—general disillusionment with institutions, the national political climate, and the perception that the Court itself has become politicized—play a role that goes beyond a simple tally of the decisions won or lost by each side.

None of the sources consulted for this fact-check allows us to precisely isolate the contribution of each factor to the observed decline. What we can say with certainty is that the net result—regardless of the precise causes—is a measurable collapse in institutional trust.

The data collection method: a gray area worth noting

In the excerpts reviewed for this analysis, Gallup does not specify the exact data collection method—by phone or online—used for this particular wave of the survey. This is not an accusation of manipulation: it is simply an observation of incomplete methodological transparency on this specific point, which a rigorous fact-check must highlight rather than gloss over. A figure without a detailed methodology remains just a figure. That does not, however, make it a lie.

Gallup’s general methodology—a national sample, a margin of error of four points—is published and well-known. What is missing from the documents available for this analysis are the technical details of the data collection protocol for this specific wave in July 2026, an element that should be verified against the complete methodology before any more detailed use of the results.

What the margin of error does—and does not—allow us to conclude

With a margin of error of four points, the figure of 33% could, in theory, range from 29% to 37% in the actual population. This range remains, in any case, significantly lower than the previous record of 39% recorded in 2025, which confirms the statistical robustness of the overall conclusion: approval of the Court has indeed fallen to an unprecedented low.

What the margin of error does not allow, however, is to resolve finer differences between subgroups with the same certainty—for example, the exact difference between the 35% support among independents and the earlier figure measured on a different date cannot be compared with the same precision without knowing the respective margins of error for each subsample.

The Lisa Cook Case: A Symbol Rather Than an Isolated Incident

The case of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, whose dismissal was blocked by a 5-4 vote, illustrates the type of case that fuels the perception of a divided and unpredictable Court among supporters of the Trump administration. To date, the case remains unresolved on the merits—the proceedings were remanded to a lower court on July 21, 2026, according to The Hill. An unresolved case can weigh as heavily on public opinion as a final judgment. Public perception does not always follow the judicial calendar.

This particular case cannot, on its own, explain the entire six-point drop observed since 2025. It is, however, one of the most concrete and recent examples of the type of decision that appears to have contributed to the measured disenchantment among Republican voters.

Other Ongoing Cases Shaping Public Perception

Beyond the Cook case, several other legal disputes involving the Supreme Court or federal appellate courts were active during the same period, notably those surrounding the presidential executive order restricting mail-in voting and the challenge to James Comey’s indictment. Each of these cases, taken in isolation, is not sufficient to explain the decline measured by Gallup, but their accumulation likely contributes to a general impression of constant confrontation between the branches of government.

This accumulation of high-profile cases, documented during the same week in July 2026, constitutes an important contextual factor for understanding the climate in which this poll was conducted, though it does not allow us to attribute the observed decline exclusively to any single case.

What Both Political Camps Are Already Saying About It

Unsurprisingly, commentators from both political camps have begun using this poll to support opposing narratives: some see it as evidence of a Court that is too conservative and has ultimately alienated even its own base; others see it as evidence of a Court that is illegitimate in the eyes of a growing majority of Americans, regardless of their ideological orientation. Neither of these two interpretations is directly confirmed by the raw poll numbers, which measure public opinion, not a cause.

A poll measures public opinion. It never, on its own, proves the cause of that opinion. It is precisely this distinction that partisan narratives tend to blur.

Why Interpretive Caution Remains Essential

A rigorous fact-check must resist the temptation to turn a public opinion figure into a definitive verdict on the legitimacy of an institution. The Gallup poll measures a perception at a specific moment in a particular political context. It does not measure the legal quality of the decisions rendered, nor does it predict the future trajectory of this approval rating, which could rise or continue to fall depending on upcoming decisions.

This distinction between measuring public opinion and making a substantive judgment is essential to avoid turning a poll into a definitive argument in a debate that remains, fundamentally, a matter of constitutional law and perceived institutional legitimacy.

The Supreme Court Isn’t the Only One Seeing Its Popularity Plummet

The same July 2026 survey documents a broader erosion of trust in several federal institutions. A CBS News/YouGov poll cited by CNN shows that 78% of Americans believe the administration is not focusing enough on lowering prices—the first poll of its kind since the war with Iran began in late February. When all institutions are losing public support at the same time, the problem may not be unique to any one of them.

The same poll shows that 58% of Americans believe Trump’s policies have left them worse off financially, compared with 42% in March 2025; only 13% say they have benefited from them, down from 23% previously, according to CNN. This general erosion of trust, measured across several fronts simultaneously, sheds light on the broader context in which the specific drop in approval ratings for the Supreme Court occurs.

How This Comparison Changes the Interpretation

If the decline in trust affected only the Supreme Court, the most likely explanation would point to specific decisions made by the institution itself. The fact that it is part of a broader erosion of trust in several federal institutions simultaneously suggests instead a general political climate of discontent, which affects the Court without necessarily being limited to it.

This observation in no way diminishes the significance of the Gallup figure on the Court—it remains a record documented over twenty-six years—but it invites us to place this figure in a broader context before drawing isolated conclusions about the institution alone.

A climate that fuels midterm polls

This Gallup poll joins a series of opinion polls published the same week, including the RealClearPolling aggregate, which gives Trump a net approval rating of -17 points, and the generic congressional ballot, where Democrats lead by two to eleven points depending on the polling firm, according to Delaware Online. The decline in confidence in the Supreme Court is part of this broader electoral climate, though no direct, measurable causal link can be established between the two sets of figures.

An unpopular Court and an unpopular president may not be two separate stories, but one and the same.

What This Data Does Not Predict

Nothing in this poll allows us to predict the outcome of the November 2026 midterm elections. Approval of a judicial institution and voting intentions for congressional candidates remain, methodologically speaking, two distinct measures that may evolve independently of one another in the coming months.

What this poll establishes with certainty is a climate of widespread distrust toward federal institutions as of July 28, 2026—a climate that strategists from both parties will almost certainly factor into their preparations for the midterm campaign.

Historical Patterns of Fluctuation

Approval ratings for the Supreme Court have, in the past, fluctuated significantly in the wake of landmark and controversial decisions. The previous record low of 39% reached in 2025 shows that the institution had already experienced a period of strong disapproval before seeing a further decline in 2026. No historical data available in the consulted file allows us to predict whether this new low of 33% represents a definitive bottom or a step toward an even lower level.

What the history of the Gallup series does confirm is that these approval ratings are never static: they evolve with the decisions handed down, the political climate, and the public’s perception of the Court’s institutional legitimacy at any given time.

Why This Trend Is Worth Tracking Over Time

The value of a single poll remains limited without tracking over time. Gallup’s long-term series, with its 26 years of data, allows us to contextualize this 33% figure as a break from the entire preceding period, which enhances its informational value beyond that of a simple one-off measurement.

The next Gallup poll on this issue, the date of which is still unknown, will make it possible to verify whether this decline continues, stabilizes, or partially reverses—information that none of the sources consulted for this fact-check can predict with certainty at this stage.

Headlines That Differ on the Same Number

Coverage of this poll varies significantly depending on the editorial stance of the media outlet in question. CNBC emphasizes the Republican drop-off as the key finding, while other outlets place greater emphasis on the overall disapproval rating of 61%. These editorial choices do not change the numbers themselves, but they shape how the public perceives the poll’s significance. The same figure can tell two different stories, depending on who is telling it.

A rigorous fact-check must separate the raw figure from its media framing. The 33% figure remains the same regardless of the headline chosen to report it; what changes is the angle used to explain and contextualize it for the reader.

Why this editorial divergence does not call the figure into question

It would be wrong to conclude that this divergence in editorial treatment casts doubt on the validity of the poll itself. The raw figures—33% approval, 61% disapproval, a 21-point drop among Republicans—are reported consistently by all the sources consulted, which reinforces their credibility despite differences in editorial emphasis.

This observation illustrates a useful rule for any reader of political polls: verify the figures at the source before accepting the interpretation offered by a given media outlet, regardless of its editorial stance. Verifying at the source is not a methodological luxury. It is the only safeguard against a distorted narrative.

Congress and the Presidency: Comparable Declines

The same July 2026 data shows comparable declines in confidence for other federal institutions. President Trump’s net approval rating, measured at -17 points by the RealClearPolling aggregate, and the generic congressional ballot favoring Democrats by two to eleven points according to the pollster, as reported by Delaware Online, paint an overall picture in which several institutions are simultaneously losing the trust of a significant portion of the population. When Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court all lose public trust at the same time, the cause is no longer institutional—it is national.

This comparison reinforces the hypothesis of a general climate of distrust rather than a crisis specific to the Supreme Court alone, without downplaying the uniqueness of the record set by the Court over its own 26-year period.

What This Comparison Does Not Explain

This comparison between institutions does not explain why the decline in confidence among Republican voters is proportionally more pronounced for the Supreme Court than for other federal institutions in certain compared polls. This question would require further analysis using additional data not available in the materials consulted for this fact-check.

What can be stated with certainty is that the temporal convergence of these multiple drops in trust is itself a significant indicator of the state of the U.S. political climate at the end of July 2026.

Trust in Federal Institutions: A Long-Term Trend

For decades, Gallup has been tracking Americans’ trust in various branches of the federal government, not just the Supreme Court. The data available for this analysis does not allow us to cite precise equivalent figures for Congress or the presidency in this same July 2026 survey—a limitation that should be explicitly noted rather than addressed through extrapolation. What the report does not say is just as worthy of mention as what it confirms.

This lack of precise comparative data in no way invalidates the key figure in this fact-check on the Supreme Court; it simply limits the scope of inter-institutional comparisons that could be attempted based on this single poll.

Why This Limitation Must Be Acknowledged Rather Than Circumvented

A rigorous fact-check does not fill in the gaps in a factual record with assumptions. When specific information is missing—in this case, equivalent figures for other institutions from the same survey wave—the rule is to state this clearly rather than allow the reader to believe in a comparison that has not been verified with the same rigor as the main figure.

This methodological discipline, applied consistently, is what distinguishes a fact-check from a mere uncritical repetition of a poll figure circulating in public debate. Sometimes, stating what we don’t know is more valuable than asserting what we think we know.

The Reliability of a Long-Term Series Versus a One-Time Measurement

Statisticians generally agree on a simple principle: a long-term series of repeated measurements—such as the one Gallup has maintained for twenty-six years on the Supreme Court—provides a more reliable basis for comparison than a single measurement. This is precisely what lends weight to the 33% figure: it is not an isolated spike, but the latest point in a downward trend that has been consistently measured over several years.

This methodological robustness, however, does not preclude the need for caution when evaluating each new one-off measurement, which may be influenced by recent and temporary events rather than by a lasting underlying trend.

What Distinguishes a Statistical Anomaly from a Real Trend

An isolated statistical anomaly would typically correct itself in the next survey, returning to the long-term average. A real trend, on the other hand, would be confirmed by a continued decline or, at a minimum, by stabilization at the new, lower level. Only a future Gallup survey will allow us to distinguish between these two scenarios with certainty.

In the absence of this future data, this fact-check is limited to noting that the current decline is statistically significant relative to the reported margin of error, without prejudging its future trajectory.

The verified facts are clear: a 33% approval rating—a 26-year low—a 21-point drop among Republican voters in less than a year, and a Gallup methodology that is generally transparent but incomplete on one specific technical point—the method used to collect data for this particular survey. What this poll does not reveal is exactly why this drop is occurring on such a large scale, nor how it will evolve in the months leading up to the November 2026 midterms.

This fact-check confirms the statistical robustness of the key figure, while refraining from treating it as a definitive verdict on the Court’s legitimacy or as an electoral prediction. What remains to be seen is the future trajectory of this confidence—and only a new survey, in the coming months, will be able to answer that question with the same rigor. A record-high figure is never the end of the story. It is just one more line in a series that continues to unfold.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist