Terry JonesAmericans mostly trust the nation’s highest court to do what’s best, presumably by scrupulously following the laws enshrined in the 238-year-old U.S. Constitution. But that trust could be tested in coming months, as the Supreme Court decides whether President Donald Trump’s tariffs pass constitutional muster, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows.
When U.S. Supreme Court Justices are sworn in to office, they vow to “support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
With this in mind, the I&I/TIPP Poll this month asked voters simply: “How much confidence do you have in the U.S. Supreme Court to make decisions that are in the best interests of the country? “
Most Americans – by the slimmest possible majority, 50% – answered either “a great deal” (16%) or “somewhat” (34%). But 42% responded either “not much” (25%) or “none at all” (17%). Another 7% were not sure.
The national online poll was taken by 1,483 adult Americans from Nov. 25 to Nov. 29. The poll has a margin of error of +/-2.8 percentage points.
There were once again differences in how people viewed the high court, and, not surprisingly, political leaning of the respondents played a major role.
Only 42% of Democrats said they had confidence in the Court’s decision making, while 51% said they didn’t. Independents were slightly less confident, with just 40% expressing confidence while 51% said expressed a lack of confidence.
Not surprisingly, with a solid 6-3 conservative majority on the Court – and with Trump having appointed three of the nine sitting justices – Republicans are pretty well pleased: In the I&I/TIPP Poll, 69% expressed confidence, and just 26% a lack of confidence.
But another big difference stands out: men and women. When it comes to the Supreme Court, men (58% “great deal/some” confidence, vs. 38% “not much/none” confidence) are far more certain that the nine justices will do the right thing for the country than women at 43% confident, 47% not confident.
The score: Men, a plus-20 percentage point spread compared to women, at minus-4 percentage points, a huge confidence gap. Is that the residual effect of the Court’s decision to de-nationalize the abortion issue, and let the states deal with it instead?
One other surprisingly large difference came between investors and non-investors. Investors were 68% confident, 31% not confident, a plus-29 percentage point gap, compared to non-investors, 44% confident, 48% not confident, a minus-four percentage point difference. That’s a 33% net difference.
Investors make up just under a third of respondents. Do investors feel they have more at stake in the outcome of Supreme Court deliberations? Are they institutionalists, who believe that sound institutions make for a healthy country? Or are they just more conservative, in general, than others?
That wasn’t the only question. I&I/TIPP also asked about the hot-button topic of Trump’s tariffs, namely: “Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court limiting the President’s ability to impose tariffs without Congress?”
Overall, a 59% majority said they would support a court move to limit Trump’s tariffs unless Congress was involved, while 26% opposed it.
And that majority is real: Indeed, both major political parties, independents and third-party members support court curbs on Trump’s ability to impose tariffs: Democrats (72% support, 16% oppose); independents (55% support, 26% oppose); and Republicans (51% support, 37% oppose).
So the question becomes: What will happen if the high-court justices decide that Trump, as the nation’s chief executive, has the right to impose tariffs? Will Americans back the Court’s decision? Or will it be another public relations wound for the supremes?
It’s not a sterile, hypothetical debate. Following Trump’s lead, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has already vowed to send out tariff rebates, or “dividends,” in the first quarter of up to $2,000 per taxpayer, not including those in upper incomes.
Taxpayers getting a surprise pop of $2,000 in cash from the tariff haul – expected to come in at more than $300 billion this year – could alter how they view them.
“We’re going to be giving back refunds out of the tariffs because we’ve taken in literally trillions of dollars, and were going to be giving a nice dividend to the people, in addition to reducing debt,” Trump said at his December cabinet meeting. “As you know, I inherited a lot of debt, but it’s peanuts compared to the kind of numbers were talking about.”
But that won’t sway the Supreme Court, which seems leery of the idea that Trump can impose tariffs outside of extreme trade emergencies. Under the Constitution, taxes must be approved by Congress, except in extraordinary cases.
For this, Trump has relied on a loose reading of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is what the Supreme Court will decide.
If the court decides Congress must OK Trump’s tariffs, will taxpayers expecting big rebates pressure their representatives to approve them?
And, even if Trump loses in court, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has argued that there are other legal ways for the U.S. to raise trade revenues, though he doesn’t specify how.
“I’m confident that with other tools we have related to unfair trade practices, we can produce the revenues we need,” Greer said, adding, “It is a lot of money … It’s a big deal.”
Ultimately, as the latest I&I/TIPP Poll indicates, it might well be a “big deal” for many Americans if Trump’s promised tariff rebates go away. Not only will rebates not line Americans’ pockets, but the U.S. government (that is, taxpayers) might end up owing as much as $168 billion to businesses if the Trump administration loses its legal fight.
I&I/TIPP publishes timely, unique, and informative data each month on topics of public interest. TIPP’s reputation for polling excellence comes from being the most accurate pollster for the past six presidential elections.
Terry Jones is an editor of Issues & Insights. His four decades of journalism experience include serving as national issues editor, economics editor, and editorial page editor for Investor’s Business Daily.
I & I Editorial Board
I’m not really concerned about what people think is “best for the country.” That’s very subjective. I’m very concerned that the Supreme Court justices stick to the Constitution and the framer’s intent.
50% is not a majority. Not even a slim majority.
Admittedly, we don’t know whether it was just under, or just over, 50%.
If Trump loses the tariffs case, why would the American public owe businesses a refund, the left has been preaching nonstop about tariffs being paid by the consumer, not the business.
I’m an American citizen and I trust the Supreme Court:
1) To hide its tracks. It seems to me that whenever there is a fundamental question to be decided (like, for instance, the woman baker who refused to sell a a cake to a lesbian couple because it would go against her 1st Amendment right to practice her religion), the Supreme Court makes a ruling on whether to take the case or not-and in this case made the ruling to not take the case. It was not a signed ruling-so the citizens who fund the Supreme Court could see who was for judging it and who wasn’t-and how the Supreme Court members handled the decision.
2) I trust Clarence “Hi Tech Lynching” Thomas. Even when I disagree with his rulings I find him forthright and diligent. If I were ever to be judged by a Judge, he is the Judge I’d want to be judged by.
3) I trust Chief Justice John Roberts to rule as political-oriented judge would. For instance, I can’t believe that he has allowed the other Federal District Court Judges to rule against Trump-not for non-partisan reasons but because of obviously partisan reasons. Why he has not severely rebuked them (when ruling on the cases)-in my opinion-not only reduces the respect one has for Federal District Court Judges, but also for the law, and for the Supreme Court, and definitely for Chief Justice John Roberts.
I support the Court overall but I have very little to no confidence in Chief Justice Roberts. In my opinion he is more concern with getting invited to the DC Galas so is too cowardly to put the Constitution before himself. I am a Conservative 1st./ and Rep. 2nd
The judicial branch was created as a weaker branch intentionally. Since 1803 it has striven to make itself the dominant branch, unconstitutionally. The judicial branch is unelected and therefore not answerable to The People. That is why it was formed without power over anything but the courts. A cabal of unelected tyrants was not then, nor is it today, to be trusted at the reins of power in a government of The People. Read what the Founders said.
“The Executive has the power of the sword. Congress has the power of the purse.
The courts merely have their opinions.”
—— Hamilton