{"id":407,"date":"2026-07-20T13:09:50","date_gmt":"2026-07-20T13:09:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407"},"modified":"2026-07-20T13:09:50","modified_gmt":"2026-07-20T13:09:50","slug":"almost-half-of-americans-view-scotus-as-political","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407","title":{"rendered":"Almost Half of Americans View SCOTUS as Political"},"content":{"rendered":"

On this day in 1990, Justice William Brennan retired from the Supreme Court after nearly 34 years of service. He is among the longest-serving and most influential justices in the history of the court.<\/p>

Read more Johnny Brown, Justice Jackson\u2019s father, passes away at 80<\/a><\/p>

At the Court<\/h2>

This morning at 9:30 a.m. EDT, the court will release the first of three summer order lists. (We discussed what these lists typically address in a Closer Look last week.)<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Morning Reads<\/h2>

Nearly half of Americans in poll say Supreme Court bases rulings on politics<\/h3>

Julian Mark and Scott Clement, The Washington Post<\/svg><\/span><\/p>

A new Washington Post-Ipsos poll found that \u201c[m]ore than half of Americans disapprove of how the Supreme Court is doing its job, while 46 percent believe that the court is ruling on President Donald Trump\u2019s policies based on ideology rather than the law.\u201d \u201cThe approval numbers, gathered this month, are among the court\u2019s lowest in recent memory and reflect an ongoing trend of Americans viewing the court\u2019s decisions as partisan,\u201d according to The Washington Post. The survey showed \u201c55 percent of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court\u2019s performance while 41 percent approve. That hovers around historic lows, although it does not reach the dissatisfaction levels of 2022, when Gallup reported that 58 percent of Americans disapproved of the court\u2019s performance while 40 percent approved.\u201d Today, 46 \u201cpercent of Americans think the justices rule on Trump administration policies based on their political views, while 25 percent see the court as ruling based on the law.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Trump administration will ask Supreme Court to keep ban on trans troops<\/h3>

Maureen Groppe, USA Today<\/p>

In a last week, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit \u201cnot to finalize\u201d its decision holding that President Donald Trump\u2019s ban on transgender troops \u201cprobably violated the troops\u2019 constitutional rights and cannot be enforced against those currently serving who challenged the policy\u201d and notified the court that it intends to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, according to USA Today. Lawyers for the government \u201cemphasized that the justices already intervened in a different challenge to the policy last year when a majority said the ban can be enforced as it\u2019s being litigated.\u201d If the D.C. Circuit \u201cdoes not agree to keep its ruling from going into effect while the administration appeals it, the government could ask the Supreme Court for an interim ruling pausing implementation.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Trump administration races the clock to rebuild US tariff wall knocked down by Supreme Court<\/h3>

Paul Wiseman, Associated Press<\/p>

After the Supreme Court in February held that President Donald Trump\u2019s did not have the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, Trump vowed to rebuild the tariff regime using other measures. \u201c[T]he president turned first to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose 10% tariffs globally. But Section 122 only authorizes tariffs for 150 days\u201d unless Congress extends them. \u201cTrump\u2019s expire on July 24,\u201d according to the Associated Press. As Congress is unlikely to keep the Section 122 tariffs in place, the Trump administration has now turned to other trade laws \u2013 most notably, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which \u201cpermits the president to impose tariffs and other sanctions against countries found to engage in \u2018unjustifiable,\u2019 \u2018unreasonable\u2019 or \u2018discriminatory\u2019 trade practices\u201d \u2013 to impose more \u201cdurable\u201d tariffs. \u201cTrade attorneys and analysts are confident the tariff-happy Trump administration will manage to beat the clock and swap out Section 122 tariffs with bigger Section 301 tariffs by the July 24 deadline.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Hawaii Justices\u2019 Stunning Screed Against the U.S. Supreme Court<\/h3>

Carrie Campbell Severino, National Review <\/svg><\/span><\/p>

In a column for the National Review, Carrie Campbell Severino highlighted a \u201cnine-page broadside against the U.S. Supreme Court [] tucked inside an otherwise unremarkable post-conviction opinion\u201d from the Hawaii Supreme Court. In Severino\u2019s view, \u201c[p]ages 72 through 80 are worth reading in full, if only to marvel at the scope and arrogance of the digression, spanning voting rights, campaign finance, abortion, religious liberty, the Second Amendment, the major questions doctrine, Chevron deference, the spending power, the removal power, and birthright citizenship.\u201d \u201cAll but admitting its intent to disregard Supreme Court precedent,\u201d Severino writes, \u201cthe Hawaii court states, \u2018[w]hen six justices walk away from those they are supposed to protect, state constitutions hold the line. That is not defiance. That is the design. State constitutionalism makes it easy to consider Roberts Court jurisprudence \u201cwhite noise.\u201d\u2019\u201d \u201cOne can only assume,\u201d Severino concluded, \u201cthat more defiant rulings will follow.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

How Cooley Became A Leading Litigation Firm<\/h3>

David Lat, Original Jurisdiction<\/p>

For his Substack, David Lat explored the evolution of Cooley, a law firm that\u2019s long been known \u201cfor handling the initial public offerings of tech giants such as Nvidia, Uber, and quite possibly OpenAI\u201d and now also \u201cis a powerhouse in litigation \u2013 including Supreme Court and appellate practice.\u201d \u201cOn June 29 and 30, the U.S. Supreme Court issued opinions in eight of the most high-profile cases of October Term 2025,\u201d Lat noted. Cooley \u201cappeared as merits counsel in four of them.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

On Site<\/h2>
Court News<\/span>

Johnny Brown, Justice Jackson\u2019s father, passes away at 80<\/h3>

By Amy Howe<\/p>

Johnny Brown, the father of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, died on Wednesday, according to an obituary published in the Miami Herald. He was 80 years old. In her memoir, Jackson credits Brown, who served as the lead lawyer for the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, with her interest in the law, writing that he \u201cwould sometimes look up from his textbooks to talk to me about his cases, to ask me what I thought, as if I weren\u2019t four years old.\u201d<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
From the SCOTUSblog Team<\/span>

Three profound constitutional provisions \u2013 and how the Supreme Court has avoided dealing with them<\/h3>

By Nora Collins<\/p>

Nora explored three constitution provisions that, despite their profound implications, have generally flown under the Supreme Court\u2019s radar: the 13th Amendment\u2019s \u201cexception clause,\u201d the guarantee clause of Article IV, and the Third Amendment.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Contributor Corner<\/span>

In birthright citizenship dissent, Justice Thomas stakes out an ideological claim of who counts as an American<\/h3>

By C\u00e9sar Cuauht\u00e9moc Garc\u00eda Hern\u00e1ndez<\/p>

In his Immigration Matters column, C\u00e9sar Cuauht\u00e9moc Garc\u00eda Hern\u00e1ndez analyzed Justice Clarence Thomas\u2019 91-page dissent in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, which was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. In it, Thomas \u201cset out to define what it means to be American and explain how it affects his view of the 14th Amendment.\u201d<\/p>

Read more Rebecca Slaughter speaks out<\/a><\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
A Closer Look<\/div>

Revising Opinions<\/h3><\/div>

The justices, just like us here at SCOTUSblog, are unfortunately not immune to making errors in their writing \u2013 despite the many rounds of edits by clerks and other justices. In fact, opinion revisions have been a part of the court\u2019s proceedings since its earliest days.<\/p>

Over the last few decades, justices have also revised their opinions, sometimes in significant, substantive ways after their release. In Lawrence v. Texas<\/em>, Justice Sandra Day O\u2019Connor deleted a full sentence characterizing Justice Antonin Scalia\u2019s dissent, and in Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation<\/em>, Scalia made a \u201chigh-profile mistake and correction,\u201d rewriting a passage in his dissent that had mischaracterized the EPA\u2019s argument in a 2001 Supreme Court ruling (a decision he had authored, no less). In 2008, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito voted to rehear a case in which Justice Anthony Kennedy had made his own \u201chigh-profile correction\u201d to the court\u2019s decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana<\/em>, which banned the death penalty in the case of child rape. Kennedy\u2019s decision had incorrectly stated the existing federal law around the death penalty for child rape; he wrote that in 30 states and under federal law the death penalty was barred for the non-fatal rape of a child, but he neglected to mention a federal law passed two years earlier that permitted the death penalty in military justice cases for that offense.<\/p>

Corrections like these are supervised by the Reporter of Decisions, whose office has managed the revision process \u201cat least since the early twentieth century.\u201d Each slip opinion contains a notice asking readers to report \u201ctypographical or other formal errors\u201d to the Reporter, whose office also reviews opinions. (Former Reporter Frank Wagner once said readers contact the office 10-20 times per year, although few of them actually warrant changes.) The Reporter compiles all suggested changes and sends them to the authoring justice, who then accepts or rejects each suggestion. Since 1994, substantive changes have reportedly required approval by the full court. Approved corrections are then added to the opinion as it moves from slip form, to preliminary print, to the bound U.S. Reports, which the court says alone contains the \u201cfinal, official\u201d text. In 2015, the court began annotating slip opinions to show where there had been changes. The change came after Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus\u2019 2014 law review article, \u201cThe (Non) Finality of Supreme Court Opinions\u201d brought widespread awareness to the revisions.<\/p>

So what has been corrected in the current term\u2019s opinions?<\/p>

As of July 14, revisions have been made in nine cases. One replacement was made in the 194-page Trump v. Barbara<\/em>, which struck down President Donald Trump\u2019s executive order ending birthright citizenship. <\/em>On page 28 of Thomas\u2019 91-page dissent, a quote initially attributed to \u201cSenator Reverdy Williams\u201d was changed to \u201cSenator George Williams.\u201d Supreme Court watchers caught the mistake the day the opinion was issued: National Review Online writer Dan McLaughlin posted on X that \u201cThomas & Alito both cite a Senator \u2018Reverdy Williams\u2019 in their dissents, but pretty sure they mean Reverdy Johnson (D-MD), who was a vigorous participant in the Senate debates.\u201d<\/p>

As for other revisions, most of these have been minor grammatical fixes or spelling changes (for instance, in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment<\/em>, one word was changed \u2013 from \u201chave plaintiffs show any way\u201d to \u201chave plaintiffs shown any way\u201d \u2013 and in Abouammo v. United States<\/em> \u201cmeans rea<\/em>\u201d was changed to \u201cmens rea<\/em>.\u201d)<\/p>

And as SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur noted the day Hunter v. United States<\/em> was released, the wrong version of \u201cforgo\u201d appeared on the first page of Justice Neil Gorsuch\u2019s concurrence. \u201cToday, the Court begins to correct course,\u201d Gorsuch wrote. \u201cIt rules that prosecutors may not always leverage their plea-bargaining power to induce a defendant to forego the right to contest his sentence on appeal.\u201d Sarah: \u201cFun fact: Forego means to go before. Forgo means to waive. Therefore, I predict this little typo is going to be revised for the foregoing reason.\u201d And so it was. In Trump v. Slaughter<\/em>, one word and a comma was changed on page eight of Justice Sonia Sotomayor\u2019s dissent \u2013 from \u201cIf, it was true\u201d to \u201cIf it were true.\u201d<\/p>

Other edits have been (slightly) more substantive. In Louisiana v. Callais<\/em>, the opinion text was changed from \u201cArgued October 15, 2025\u2014Decided\u201d to \u201cArgued March 24, 2025\u2014Reargued October 15, 2025\u2014Decided April 29, 2026,\u201d and in United States v. Hemani<\/em>, \u201cTylenol with codeine\u201d was changed to \u201cRobitussin with codeine.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

SCOTUS Quote<\/h2>

MR. WAXMAN: \u201c[M]ay I finish my sentence?\u201d<\/p>

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: \u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>

MR. WAXMAN: \u201cA test \u2013\u201d<\/p>

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: \u201cAssuming it’s a short one, yes.\u201d<\/p>

(Laughter.)<\/p>

MR. WAXMAN: \u201cI won’t put any dependent clauses in it \u2026\u201d<\/p>

\u2014 College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Post-Secondary Education Expense Board<\/em>\u00a0(1999)<\/p>

Read more In birthright citizenship dissent, Justice Thomas stakes out an ideological claim of who counts as an American<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Plus, Trump\u2019s ban on transgender troops will likely return to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":17,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,5,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-contributor-corner","category-from-the-scotusblog-team","category-newsletter"],"yoast_head":"\nAlmost Half of Americans View SCOTUS as Political - American Service Review<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Almost Half of Americans View SCOTUS as Political - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Plus, Trump\u2019s ban on transgender troops will likely return to the Supreme Court.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-20T13:09:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/8799eb9356be2e9be41dd9c2414e1aee.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1333\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=407#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=407\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"Almost Half of Americans View SCOTUS as Political\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-20T13:09:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=407\"},\"wordCount\":1902,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=407#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Contributor Corner\",\"From the SCOTUSblog Team\",\"Newsletter\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=407#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=407\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=407\",\"name\":\"Almost Half of Americans View SCOTUS as Political - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=407#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=407#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-20T13:09:50+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=407#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=407\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=407#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=407#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Almost Half of Americans View SCOTUS as Political\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"American Service Review\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Almost Half of Americans View SCOTUS as Political - American Service Review","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Almost Half of Americans View SCOTUS as Political - American Service Review","og_description":"Plus, Trump\u2019s ban on transgender troops will likely return to the Supreme Court.","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-07-20T13:09:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2000,"height":1333,"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/8799eb9356be2e9be41dd9c2414e1aee.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"Almost Half of Americans View SCOTUS as Political","datePublished":"2026-07-20T13:09:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407"},"wordCount":1902,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","articleSection":["Contributor Corner","From the SCOTUSblog Team","Newsletter"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407","name":"Almost Half of Americans View SCOTUS as Political - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","datePublished":"2026-07-20T13:09:50+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","width":1200,"height":627},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=407#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Almost Half of Americans View SCOTUS as Political"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/","name":"American Service Review","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/americanservicereview.com"],"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/407","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/407\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/17"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}