Focus Group Report: Perceptions of the Supreme Court

This Navigator Research report contains contains findings from focus groups among young progressive and liberal Democrats in Virginia, highly-engaged independents in Nevada, and Republicans in Minnesota assessing their perceptions of the Supreme Court following the end of the term, including awareness of and reactions to recent decisions, assessments of alleged ethics violations by several conservative Justices, and support for various potential Court reforms.

The majority of participants feel pessimistic about the direction of the country as many blame increased political polarization.

When asked what is going well in the country, most answered “not much” or “nothing,” as many felt they were unable to recall positive stories in the news. As one participant succinctly put it: “Things are hyper-polarized.” However, some participants noted technological innovations as positives for the country along with greater political engagement, especially among young Americans.

• A Republican from Minnesota expressed: “I was trying to be positive… like, what can I be positive about? I cannot come up with a word [for] what’s going well, because there’s a lot of things I disagree with that’s going on right now.” 
• A Democrat from Virginia felt: “I’d say, engagement… maybe it’s partly me getting older, but I just feel like people in general, especially younger people, are more engaged in politics, whether it’s positive or negative.”
• An independent from Nevada stated: “Technological innovation… we still, in this country, have a pretty robust higher education system for those who can afford it, and levels of research and levels of innovation.”

A vast majority of participants hold an unfavorable view of the Supreme Court, as most felt the Court is conservative-leaning and holds too much power.

When expressing a single-word sentiment to describe the Court, many chose negative descriptors such as “non-trusting” or “scared.” Participants felt the Supreme Court has too much power and is not representing the public well. Further, most participants said the Court is too conservative to the point that outcomes of cases are predictable prior to their decision. Democrats and a significant share of independent participants support the idea of term limits for Supreme Court Justices, while Republican participants were more skeptical of the idea. 

• A Democrat in Virginia said: “I just feel like they have the power to change so many things that are out of our control, and it’s a power control, and it’s scary. And in regards to women’s rights, and like LGBTQ+ [rights], there’s just so much power there, that shouldn’t be all in their hands.”
• An independent in Nevada felt: “It’s almost like we don’t have an opinion anymore. No matter what, we already know what the end result is going to be.” in assessing the conservative lean of the Court.
• Another Nevada independent expressed: “I think they have a more conservative lean, conservative tilt. I think a lot of us feel that way as well… they definitely have a conservative skew to it. And that’s just happened because more Supreme Court Justices have died or retired during Republican 10 years than Democrat.”
• In commenting about term limits, a Democrat from Virginia replied: “I’m totally for it. It almost seems like something that I would be like, ‘why hasn’t that been implemented already?’… almost every other kind of politician has a term limit. I’m not sure as to why specifically the Justices wouldn’t.” By contrast, a Republican in Minnesota felt: “Well, we have enough chaos already electing the people that we’re electing already. That branch of government, I don’t think we can afford to add that chaos to that branch of government.” 

Participants across partisanship were outraged by recent news stories describing the actions of some Justices, deeming them “corrupt” and “disheartening.”

When asked about the ProPublica article published about Justice Alito’s relationship to a donor, many expressed concern about corruption across partisanship, with an independent from Nevada saying “it sounds like bribery a little bit to me” and another participant calling it “very shady.” Reaction to news about Justice Clarence Thomas was even more deeply negative, with independents in Nevada referring to taking income in the form of vacations and tuition for his nephew as “disgusting” and “a textbook quid pro quo.” After hearing about a number of recent stories about different Justices and potential ethics violations, participants used far more negative words to describe the Court, including “corrupt,” “brazen,” and “infuriating.” 

• When reacting to news about Justice Alito, one Minnesota Republican felt: “I think it paints a bad picture, and I think saying the seat was empty regardless is a really lame answer.”
• An independent from Nevada said: “It sounds like bribery a little bit to me… I think if you’re a Justice on the Court, you need to be completely unbiased and you shouldn’t be swayed in any way to go in any direction.”
• A Democratic participant from Virginia stated: “Well, this conflict of interest, that you’re with someone who’s so influential who, on the legislative side, could lobby for issues, that could seek legal permission for things that they could lobby for in Congress”  about the scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas.

Participants’ had strong reactions to the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding student loan debt, affirmative action, and LGBTQ+ rights.

On affirmative action, Democrats from Virginia were dumbfounded that something that has been in place for decades was suddenly reversed. Negative responses to the decisions on student loan debt cancellation and LGBTQ+ rights were driven primarily by Democrats as they found them to be “upsetting.” However, the decisions received mixed reaction by independents and were more favorable to Republican participants, who said that “the taxpayer should not be on the hook for someone’s degree” and that “a business owner has the right to do what business owner wants to do.”  

• In response to the affirmative action case, an independent from Nevada expressed: “I’ve always felt that affirmative action, as complex as the debates are, it’s something that’s been necessary, something absolutely necessary. And that there could become a time in society where it is no longer necessary. But I don’t think that time is yet. And I think that a very conservative Court has pulled the plug way prematurely on affirmative action issues.” 
• On the decision to block President Biden’s authority to provide student loan debt relief, a Minnesota Republican felt: “I certainly support [the Supreme Court’s] decision, and I think that the focus needs to be on reigning in these colleges and the amount of money that they are making, the amount that they’re charging.”
• An independent from Nevada stated: “Personally, I do not feel that that is beneficial in any way. How someone personally lives their lifestyle should not deter how they’re treated. They should be treated equally in my eyes, whether you believe in their lifestyle or not.’
• In response to all the decisions, a Democrat from Virginia expressed: “It almost feels like going back in time, or rolling… but it almost feels like going back in time or rolling back progress that was made before I was born [with regards to the recent cases].”

Participants wanted increased transparency and consequences for ethical violations, enforced externally beyond the Justices themselves.

After being informed of the recent ethical violations, participants expressed strong support for Supreme Court Justices being subject to similar ethical standards and consequences as lower court judges. Many felt investigations of potential ethics violations by Justices and structural consequences for them were important to ensure that no one is above the law and that they are held to account when they happen to be an external entity to enforce the standards. 

• A participant from Minnesota expressed: “I think that, regardless of what side you are on an issue, whether it’s for your side or not, the code of conduct should be demanded.” 
• A Virginia Democrat felt: “I don’t trust the Supreme Court to do it themselves… they’ll hide something.”
• An independent from Nevada stated: “There needs to be a process when people have ethical issues like that to get these people removed. That’s disgusting.”