Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has publicly addressed the correlation between the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence and a decline in public confidence.

Ketanji Brown Jackson 法官已公開探討最高法院近期法理與公眾信心下降之間的關聯。

The current institutional climate is characterized by a significant erosion of public trust, as evidenced by multiple polling datasets. Data from the Pew Research Center (September 2025) indicated a polarized favorability split, with 71% of Republicans viewing the Court positively compared to 26% of Democrats. Subsequent metrics from Echelon Insights and YouGov further corroborate this trend, with disapproval ratings reaching 44% and 45% respectively. This decline is attributed to a combination of ethics controversies—specifically undisclosed luxury gifts received by Justice Clarence Thomas and the political activities of Justice Samuel Alito's spouse—and high-impact rulings such as the reversal of abortion protections in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

目前的體制氣候以公眾信任顯著侵蝕為特徵，多個民調數據集均證明了這一點。皮尤研究中心（Pew Research Center，2025年9月）的數據顯示，好感度呈現兩極分化，71% 的共和黨人對法院持正面看法，而民主黨僅為 26%。隨後來自 Echelon Insights 和 YouGov 的指標進一步證實了這一趨勢，反對率分別達到 44% 和 45%。這種下降歸因於倫理爭議的綜合影響——特別是 Clarence Thomas 法官收到的未披露奢侈禮物，以及 Samuel Alito 法官配偶的政治活動——以及具有高影響力的裁決，例如在「Dobbs 訴 Jackson 婦女健康組織案」中撤銷對墮胎的保護。

Justice Jackson has articulated a concern that the Court's operational procedures may be perceived as partisan. During the American Law Institute's 2026 annual meeting, she posited that the judiciary must remain scrupulous in its adherence to established principles to avoid the appearance of political alignment. This critique was specifically linked to the Court's handling of Louisiana v. Callais, where the majority's decision regarding congressional redistricting was viewed by Jackson as a departure from standard procedural constraints. She argued that such deviations result in tangible societal consequences, including the potential destabilization of federal grants and the Department of Education, while leaving the Court's legal reasoning opaque to the public.

Jackson 法官表達了對法院運作程序可能被視為具有黨派色彩的擔憂。在 2026 年美國法律協會（American Law Institute）年會上，她提出司法部門必須嚴格遵守既定原則，以避免出現政治結盟的跡象。這項批評特別與法院處理「路易斯安那州 訴 Callais 案」有關，Jackson 認為大多數法官關於國會選區重劃的決定偏離了標準的程序限制。她認為這種偏差會導致切實的社會後果，包括聯邦撥款和教育部可能陷入不穩定，同時使法院的法律推理對公眾而言不透明。

Conversely, the conservative supermajority has maintained a posture of institutional neutrality. Chief Justice John Roberts has asserted that the justices do not function as political actors. Justice Samuel Alito explicitly dismissed Justice Jackson's dissent in the Louisiana redistricting matter as groundless. Despite these ideological divergences, Justice Jackson noted that the internal interpersonal dynamics among the justices remain professional and compartmentalized.

相反地，保守派超級多數席位則維持體制中立的姿態。首席大法官 John Roberts 主張法官並非作為政治參與者運作。Samuel Alito 法官明確地將 Jackson 法官在路易斯安那州選區重劃案中的異議斥為毫無根據。儘管存在這些意識形態分歧，Jackson 法官指出法官之間的內部人際互動仍保持專業且界限分明。

The Supreme Court continues to navigate a period of historic low approval ratings amid ongoing internal and external debates regarding its impartiality.

在關於其公正性的內部與外部爭論持續之際，最高法院仍處於支持率歷史低谷的時期。