Popular Supreme Court Decisions, Inflation Pessimism, and other Themes from the July Marquette Law School Poll

Plus 1k adults share their biggest concerns about the country

The latest national survey from the Marquette Law School Poll is out now. Here are just a few of the interesting results we found. For more, read our press release about national politics here, our Supreme Court press release, or our complete topline and crosstab tables. At the last link you’ll also find our new Trend Toplines file, which includes tables and graphs showing how the responses to each question have changed over time.

The Supreme Court’s decisions were popular this term.

Majorities of adults favored the Supreme Court’s rulings in all 7 of the major cases we asked about from the past term.

  • Uphold TX law requiring proof of age to access adult websites: 75% favor
  • Require due process for those subject to deportation: 73% favor
  • Uphold TN ban on transgender treatment for minors: 71% favor
  • Allow parents to opt school children out of lessons: 71% favor
  • Uphold law requiring TikTok sale: 60% favor
  • Require religious tax exemption for Catholic Charities: 59%
  • Limit district court use of nationwide injunctions: 56% favor

Overall, 49% approved of the Court’s job performance and 51% disapproved. This is a four-point drop in those approving, driven by a large (13-point) drop-off among Democrats.

Back in the summer of 2021, the parties scarcely differed in their views of the court. This changed rapidly, particularly following the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v Wade. In the latest poll, 83% of Republicans approve of the Supreme Court’s job vs 20% of Democrats and 45% of independents.[i]

Trump’s overall job approval is stable but varies a lot by topic.

Approval of Trump’s job performance ranges from +8 on border security to -30 on tariffs, inflation, and the cost of living.

Pessimism about inflation

Opposition to immigration and frustration with high inflation helped elect Trump in 2024, and initially Trump enjoyed support for his policies on both these issues.

In December 2024, shortly after winning the election, 81% of Trump voters anticipated that his policies would decrease inflation. This fell to 75% in February, 67% in March, 59% in May, and 58% in July.

Among all adults in July, just 28% believe Trump’s policies will decrease inflation and 60% expect an increase. 65% percent predict that “inflation and the cost of living will increase” over the next 12 months, while just 18% expect it to decline.

Support for deportations is waning

Since early 2024, we’ve asked “Do you favor or oppose deporting immigrants who are living in the United States illegally back to their home countries?” Phrased this way, support for deportations grew after Trump’s election, reaching 68% favoring deportations in March with 32% opposed. In July, support for deportations fell to 57% with 43% opposed.

Views on deportations are highly dependent on how the question is phrased. Throughout this period, we have also asked, “Do you favor or oppose deporting immigrants who are living in the United States illegally back to their home countries even if they have lived here for a number of years, have jobs and no criminal record?” Put this way, support for deportations has never exceeded 44% and stood at 38% in July 2025.

Most people (55%) think the U.S. is “mostly deporting immigrants who have no criminal records,” while 45% believe mostly immigrants with criminal records are being deported. July is the first time we’ve included this question.

Themes in open-ended responses

Unlike our Wisconsin state polls, all survey respondents complete our national polls online. This allows us to ask open-ended, free-response questions. Since December, we’ve asked, “What do you [like/dislike] about Donald Trump?” In July, we added a new question. “What is your biggest concern about the country these days?”

You can read, search, sort, and filter all 1,005 responses at this link. This is an exercise I find invaluable in understanding what voters (and non-voters) are actually thinking.

Here are a few of my impressions from the free responses:

  • The balance of open-ended responses has shifted modestly against Trump, tracking his slow decline in overall job approval. In December 2024, 51% named things they both liked and disliked about Trump, while 12% didn’t dislike anything and 35% didn’t like anything. In July, a similar number, 49%, list likes and dislikes, but the those who don’t like anything grew to 40% and those who don’t dislike anything fell to 8%.
  • If I had to describe the content of the “biggest concern” question in one word it would be “fear” or “anxiety” even more so than “anger,” which was also present in many responses.
  • Ninety-one people spontaneously mentioned going to war as among their top concerns for the country.
  • Many answers described social divisions and frustrations with other Americans. Elsewhere in the survey, 56% said that “generally speaking, most people can’t be trusted.” This is the highest level mistrust we have measured in 24 surveys going back to September 2021. Our open-ended explorer tool allows you to filter answers by the respondent’s level of trust in others.
  • Over 90 people spontaneously mentioned something related to immigration, ICE, or deportations as among their biggest concerns. Of these, 58% were generally supportive of Trump’s policies, 31% were opposed, and the views of 11% were unclear or unclassifiable.
  • 13 people, 11 of them Republicans, spontaneously mentioned Jeffrey Epstein, always in criticism of Donald Trump. Our survey was in the field from July 7-16, with most interviews completed by July 9th. The Department of Justice published its memo ending the Epstein investigation on July 7th.

[i] These figures are for unleaned party ID, where independents who lean to a party are still counted as independents. The press release shows figures for leaned party ID. I use the unleaned party ID in this graphic because it has a longer time series.

Continue ReadingPopular Supreme Court Decisions, Inflation Pessimism, and other Themes from the July Marquette Law School Poll

Wisconsin Governor 2026 Outlook

Gov. Tony Evers announced July 24 that he will not seek a third term in 2026.

Evers has been the most consistently popular state politician in Wisconsin since his election in 2018. He has maintained an average approval rating above 50%, with disapproval averaging 41%. He is also better known and better liked than most other office holders in the state.

With Evers out of the race all the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican primaries will begin with very low name recognition and will need substantial campaign resources to introduce themselves to voters statewide.

A majority of registered voters in the June 2025 Marquette Law School poll said they would not like Evers to seek a third term, though over 80% of Democrats wanted him to run.

Should Evers run? (June 2025 MULawPoll)

Would you personally like to see Tony Evers seek a third term as governor in 2026?

Poll datesYesNoDon’t knowRefusedn
6/13-19/25425521873

Evers retains strong support for a third term with Democratic voters, 83% of whom support a third term bid, but 50% of independents oppose a third term as do a very large majority of Republicans.

Party IDYesNoDon’t knowRefusedn
Republican79300398
Independent375094106
Democrat831511363

Evers job approval history

Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way Tony Evers is handling his job as Governor of Wisconsin?

Poll datesNetApproveDisapproveDon’t knowRefusedn
1/16-20/19173922381800
4/3-7/19104737150800
8/25-29/19205434101800
10/13-17/19185234131799
11/13-17/1954742101801
12/3-8/19125038111800
1/8-12/2011514090800
2/19-23/201351381011000
3/24-29/2036652961813
5/3-7/2026593371811
6/14-18/2016543861805
8/4-9/2020573760801
8/30-9/3/208514352802
9/30-10/4/2010524251805
10/21-25/207504370806
8/3-8/217504370807
10/26-31/21-1454681805
2/22-27/229504181802
4/19-24/226494371805
6/14-20/223484561803
8/10-15/222474581811
9/6-11/22-3444780801
10/3-9/22-2464851801
10/24-11/1/22-1464762802
6/8-13/2318573940913
10/26-11/2/237534620908
1/24-31/247514450930
4/3-10/248524430814
6/12-20/247514460871
7/24-8/1/247514450877
8/28-9/5/247514450822
9/18-26/242484650882
10/16-24/246514540834
2/19-26/255494460864
6/13-19/252484650873

Average approval: 50.4% Average disapproval: 41.2%

Number of poll with positive and negative net approval:

Net postive approval: 31 of 35 polls.

Net negative approval: 4 of 35 polls.

Approval by year

YearNetApproveDisapproveDon’t knowRefusedn
20191348351614800
2020165438717443
202124745711612
202224745715625
2023135542301821
202475144506030
202544945601737

Evers favorability

[Tony Evers] Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of <> or haven’t you heard enough about them yet?

Poll datesNetFavorableUnfavorableNot heard+DKHaven’t heard enoughDon’t known
2/25-3/1/1872013664818800
6/13-17/1852217614516800
7/11-15/18112514604614800
8/15-19/188312345379800
9/12-16/1893526392910800
10/3-7/1833835272251000
10/24-28/1803838241851400
1/16-20/1917412434286800
4/3-7/1913483517125800
8/25-29/1914493516115800
10/13-17/1912473518135799
11/13-17/192434115123801
12/3-8/198453717125800
1/8-12/208453717143800
2/19-23/2034340161241000
3/24-29/2026542817116813
5/3-7/201450361375811
6/14-18/20175437972805
8/4-9/201752351394801
8/30-9/3/20647411192802
9/30-10/4/20747401293805
10/21-25/20447431082806
8/3-8/21446421183807
10/26-31/21-342451294805
2/22-27/22647411174802
4/19-24/22547421073805
6/14-20/222444214112803
8/10-15/22546411266811
9/6-11/22045451073801
10/3-9/22-24446963801
10/24-11/1/22-24446963802
6/8-13/23135239981913
10/26-11/2/2385042871908
1/24-31/2475245330930
4/3-10/2455045550814
6/12-20/2485143660871
7/24-8/1/2495041990877
8/28-9/5/2464943880822
9/18-26/2495142760882
10/16-24/2454944770834
2/19-26/2504747760864
6/13-19/25-24547880873

Evers favorability by year

YearNetFavorableUnfavorableNot heard+DKHaven’t heard enoughDon’t known
2018631254333106400
2019124634201554800
2020114938131047443
20210444412841612
20223464311745625
20231051418711821
2024750436606030
2025-146478701737

Building name familiarity

Evers is now far better known than any of the potential Democratic or Republican candidates. His absence from the race levels the playing field with all candidates having to take time to build recognition. While candidates may be well known locally in their city or district, creating statewide name recognition requires extensive campaigning.

In February 2018, Evers was unknown to 66% of registered voters (who said they either hadn’t heard enough or didn’t know if they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of him.) Even by July 2018 he was still unfamiliar to 60%. This is typical of non-incumbent candidates who must introduce themselves to voters statewide.

For comparison, in February 2022 Rebecca Kleefisch, after serving 8 years as Lt. Governor, was unfamiliar to 50%. In January 2019, following his election as Attorney General, Josh Kaul was not familiar to 77%. In June 2023, U.S. Representative Tom Tiffany was unfamiliar to 75%.

Continue ReadingWisconsin Governor 2026 Outlook

Wisconsin Supreme Court Confirms DNR’s Power to Enforce the Spills Law Amid Increasing Citizen Concerns Over PFAS

The latest edition of the Marquette Law School Poll revealed that 79 percent of registered Wisconsin voters are very or somewhat concerned about a class of emerging contaminants known as PFAS, often called the “forever chemicals,” in their water supply. PFAS have been used across a broad spectrum of commercial applications from firefighting foam to food packaging. They were prized for their resistance to breaking down; ironically, that trait has caused part of the problem, as PFAS are now present throughout the environment.

More recently, scientists have determined that PFAS cause a variety of serious adverse health effects including cancer. Significant quantities of PFAS have been detected in numerous Wisconsin public water distribution networks and private wells. The poll results show that Wisconsinites’ level of concern about PFAS has increased ten percent from last year, and twenty percent over 2022, when the question first appeared in the poll. When the sample is confined to those who have heard about PFAS in their community, a full 90% are very or somewhat concerned about PFAS.

Meanwhile, late last month the Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in a dispute over the extent of the DNR’s authority to require responsible parties to clean up releases of PFAS and other emerging contaminants under the state’s “Spills Law,” Wis. Stat. s. 292.11. At its core, the Spills Law requires a person who causes the discharge of a “hazardous substance” (or who possesses or controls a hazardous substance that has been discharged) to notify WDNR of the spill and then to “take the actions necessary to restore the environment”—a potentially time-consuming and expensive process.

We have known for a long time that some substances, such as PCBs, are “hazardous.” But others, such as PFAS, have lurked unknown or undetectable until very recently, hence the name “emerging contaminants.” The statute does not enumerate which “substances” are “hazardous.” Instead, it broadly defines the term to include anything that causes a substantial threat to human health or the environment. Historically, the DNR enjoyed considerable flexibility in determining what qualifies as a “hazardous substance” on an ad hoc basis, sometimes even construing it to include everyday substances (milk, for example, when released in sufficient quantities to sensitive receiving waters).

The central question in the case decided in June, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Inc. et al. v. Wisconsin Natural Resources Board, et al., arose over whether WDNR could continue to determine “hazardous substances” on a case-by-case basis, or whether it had to engage in administrative rulemaking to create a list identifying which substances it considered hazardous, and at what quantities or concentrations in the environment. The rulemaking process is lengthy and often controversial, so a decision against DNR would have posed substantial challenges for it, potentially eliminating its ability to respond in real time to spills of emerging contaminants. On the other hand, a list of hazardous substances would provide predictability and certainty to parties responsible for cleanups under the Spills Law. Both the trial court and the court of appeals ruled against DNR and would have required the agency to create the list. The agency would presumably also have had to revise the list via rulemaking whenever it wanted to add a new “emerging contaminant,” a difficult task when considering that PFAS are not a single chemical compound but rather a generalized term for a class of thousands of slightly different substances.

The supreme court reversed, holding in DNR’s favor that the agency could continue its practice of determining whether a release involved a “hazardous substance” based on the individual circumstances of each case. The court held that the statute’s “broad and open-ended” definition of “hazardous substance” is cabined by the requirement that the substance significantly increase mortality or contribute to serious illness in humans, or that it may pose a substantial hazard to human health or the environment.

The court also found no definitional rulemaking requirement in the plain text of the statute, despite the Legislature’s inclusion of such a requirement in other provisions of the Spills Law. In considering how the Spills Law works, context is important, the court observed: “a gallon of milk spilled into Lake Michigan may not ‘pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment,’ but a 500-gallon tank of beer or milk discharged into a trout stream might well pose [such a hazard] to the stream’s fish and environment.” Thus, the court thought it was important for DNR to retain some flexibility in interpreting the statute.

Moreover, the court held the DNR’s interpretation did not violate Wis. Stat. s. 227.10(2m), a provision that I have blogged about before. It requires “explicit” statutory or regulatory authority for an agency to “implement or enforce any standard, requirement, or threshold.” The court reiterated its holding in the Clean Wisconsin cases that the statute  “may be satisfied by a grant of authority that is explicit but broad.” The requisite authority was present in the Spills Law itself, the court found.

The court’s affirmation of DNR’s authority to require responsible parties to remediate spills of emerging contaminants such as PFAS on a case-by-case basis is, no doubt, a victory for the agency. It allows DNR to require cleanup for spills not only of PFAS but of any other emerging contaminant that comes along in the future. But it also likely provides some comfort to the 79 percent of Wisconsinites who are concerned about PFAS entering their water supply.

Read the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s opinion here.

Continue ReadingWisconsin Supreme Court Confirms DNR’s Power to Enforce the Spills Law Amid Increasing Citizen Concerns Over PFAS
Newer Posts
Older Posts