At a time of heightened political division, Americans’ confidence in their country’s judicial system and courts dropped to a record low of 35% this year, according to a new Gallup poll.

The United States saw a sharp drop of 24 percentage points over the last four years, setting the country apart from other wealthy nations where most people on average still express trust in their systems.

The results come after a tumultuous period that included the overturning of the nationwide right to abortion, the indictment of former President Donald Trump and the subsequent withdrawal of federal charges, and his attacks on the integrity of the judicial system.

The drop wasn’t limited to one end of the political spectrum. Confidence dropped among people who disapproved of the country’s leadership during Joe Biden’s presidency and among those who approved, according to Gallup. The respondents weren’t asked about their party affiliations.

It’s become normal for people who disapprove of the country’s leadership to also lose at least some confidence in the court system. Still, the 17-point drop recorded among that group under Biden was precipitous, and the cases filed against Trump were likely factors, Gallup said.

Among those who did approve of the country’s leadership, there was an 18-point decline between 2023 and 2024, possibly reflecting dissatisfaction with court rulings favoring Trump, Gallup found. Confidence in the judicial system had been above 60% among that group during the first three years of Biden’s presidency but nosedived this year.

Trump had faced four criminal indictments this year, but only a hush-money case in New York ended with a trial and conviction before he won the presidential race.

Since then, special counsel Jack Smith has ended his two federal cases, which pertained to Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss and allegations that he hoarded classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. A separate state election interference case in Fulton County, Georgia, is largely on hold. Trump denies wrongdoing in all.

Other Gallup findings have shown that Democrats’ confidence in the Supreme Court dropped by 25 points between 2021 and 2022, the year the justices overturned constitutional protections for abortion. Their trust climbed a bit, to 34%, in 2023, but dropped again to 24% in 2024. The change comes after a Supreme Court opinion that Trump and other former presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution.

Trust in the court among Republicans, by contrast, reached 71% in 2024.

The judicial system more broadly also lost public confidence more quickly than many other U.S. institutions over the last four years. Confidence in the federal government, for example, also declined to 26%. That was a 20-point drop — not as steep as the decline in confidence in the courts.

The trust drop is also steep compared with other countries around the world. Only a handful of other countries have seen larger drops during a four-year period. They include a 46-point drop in Myanmar during the period that overlapped the return of military rule in 2021, a 35-point drop in Venezuela amid deep economic and political turmoil from 2012 to 2016 and a 28-point drop in Syria in the runup and early years of its civil war.

The survey was based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,000 U.S. adults between June 28 and August 1.

Maryland lawmakers are considering ending the state’s statute of limitations for when lawsuits can be filed against institutions related to child sexual abuse, though the state’s courts are likely to decide whether such a change in the law is constitutional if the General Assembly passes one.

Accusers who are now adults were scheduled to testify in favor of the legislation at a hearing Thursday.

Currently, people in Maryland who say they were sexually abused as children can’t sue after they reach the age of 38. The Maryland House has approved legislation in recent years that would have lifted that age limit, but it stalled in the state Senate.

This year, state Sen. Will Smith, who chairs the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, is sponsoring a bill that would end the age limit. He said in an interview that he’s confident the bill will pass this year but that the judiciary likely will have the final say.

Fifteen states have lifted statutes of limitations for child sexual abuse, according to Child USAdvocacy, a nonprofit that advocates for better laws to protect children. Twenty-four have approved revival periods known as “lookback windows,” which are limited timeframes in which accusers can sue, regardless of how long ago the alleged abuse occurred.

In 2017, Maryland raised the age that accusers can file lawsuits from 25 to 38. But the law also included language, known as a statute of repose, that some say prevents lawmakers from extending the statute of limitations again.

When Markicia Horton graduates this spring from the Texas Southern University’s Thurgood Marshall School of Law in Houston and takes the bar, she’ll be stepping into a world where a Black woman is set to be on the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time in its 232-year history.

With Stephen Breyer’s retirement from the court and President Joe Biden’s commitment to name a Black woman as his nominee, it is likely that, as the 25-year-old Horton moves into a profession, there will be a Black woman as a Supreme Court justice. What that means for her and thousands of other young women of color in law schools or serving as lawyers around the country is incalculable.

But it also comes with concerns. According to the National Association for Law Placement, Black women made up 3.17% of associates at America’s law firms in 2021 but less than 1% of partners. Women of color overall made up nearly 16% of associates at America’s law firms but only about 4% of the partners.

And across the federal bench, Black women hold 45 of the 850 lifetime appointments to district and appeals judgeships — or about 5%, according to government data.

The Senate’s top Democrat is recommending President Joe Biden nominate two prominent voting rights attorneys to serve as judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and on the federal bench in Manhattan.

Sen. Chuck Schumer has recommended the president nominate Myrna Perez, who serves as the director of voting rights and election programs at NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice, for the appeals court post, a person familiar with the matter told The Associated Press on Monday.

He is also recommending Biden nominate Dale Ho, who leads the Voting Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, as a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, the person said. The person could not discuss the matter publicly ahead of a formal announcement and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity.

If confirmed, Perez would be the only Latina on the court — one of the most prominent judicial posts in the country. Perez would also be the first Hispanic woman to serve on the court since Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor served on the panel. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the federal courts in New York, Connecticut and Vermont.

Schumer’s recommendation that Biden nominate highly experienced litigators in voting and election law is also a calculated political move for Democrats, who have made voting rights one of their biggest priorities.

Days ago, Biden reemphasized a plea for sweeping legislation in Congress to protect the right to vote as Republican-led lawmaking bodies in Texas and other states pass new restrictions making it tougher to cast ballots.

As majority leader, Schumer has been pushing to keep with the president’s pledge to bring on a diverse group of judicial nominees to represent the demographic diversity of the nation.

Democrats, narrowly controlling the Senate for the first time in six years, are eager to turn the page from the Trump administration, especially when it comes to judges. President Donald Trump appointed mostly white men to fill the jobs, and now more than one-quarter of the federal judiciary is made up of his appointees. Trump, a Republican, also nominated three members of the Supreme Court: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

A town court in southern Nevada was closed Tuesday after officials said several workers were exposed to a person who tested positive for the new coronavirus.

The two judges in the Nye County community of Pahrump issued an order saying all staff members will be tested Wednesday for COVID-19, and no in-person hearings will be held at the courthouse.

Pahrump Justice Court will continue to conduct initial appearances, bail hearings and arraignments with detainees and attorneys appearing by telephone or video conference.

Applications for protective orders can be made by internet or at the Nye County sheriff’s office.

The court in the community about 60 miles west of Las Vegas also closed for several days in April after an employee tested positive and other workers were exposed to the virus.

The court order said officials anticipate reopening after staff members have tested negative.

State health officials report that more than 22,000 people have tested positive for the virus statewide and at least 537 have died.

For most people, the virus causes mild or moderate symptoms for up to three weeks. Older adults and people with existing health problems can face severe illness and death. The vast majority recover.

Voters in Wisconsin will face a choice Tuesday of participating in a presidential primary election or heeding warnings from public health officials to stay away from large crowds during the coronavirus pandemic.

Hours after Democratic Gov. Tony Evers issued an order postponing the election for two months, the conservative-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday sided with Republicans who said he didn’t have the authority to reschedule the race on his own. Conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court quickly followed with a ruling blocking Democratic efforts to extend absentee voting.

The decisions leave Wisconsin as the only state with an election scheduled in April that is proceeding as planned. As other states prepare to vote in May or June, Wisconsin will be closely watched for signs that fears of the coronavirus may depress turnout or cause other problems at the polls.

Evers said he had no other options after the state court ruled against him. “There’s not a Plan B. There’s not a Plan C,” Evers said earlier Monday.

Joe Biden already has a commanding delegate lead over Bernie Sanders and the Wisconsin results aren’t likely to slow his march to the Democratic presidential nomination. But the tumult in one of the most critical general election battlegrounds was a reminder of how the coronavirus has upended politics during an election year. Beyond the shifts in the primary calendar, Biden and President Donald Trump have not been able to hold in-person campaign events and have moved most of their operations online. Sanders called Tuesday’s election “dangerous” and said his campaign will not engage in any traditional get-out-the-vote efforts.

The tension in Wisconsin over whether and how to proceed with the election has been building for weeks. Evers and Republicans initially agreed it was imperative for the election to proceed because thousands of local offices are on the ballot Tuesday for terms that begin in two weeks. There is also a state Supreme Court election.

Myanmar’s government rejected the International Criminal Court’s decision to allow prosecutors to open an investigation into crimes committed against the Rohingya Muslim minority.

Government spokesman Zaw Htay said at a Friday night press conference that Myanmar stood by its position that the Netherlands-based court has no jurisdiction over its actions. His statement was the first official reaction since the court on Thursday agreed to proceed with the case.

Myanmar has been accused of carrying out human rights abuses on a massive scale in the western state of Rakhine in 2017 during what it described as a counterinsurgency campaign.

Zaw Htay cited a Myanmar Foreign Ministry statement from April 2018 that because Myanmar was not a party to the agreement establishing the court, it did not need to abide by the court’s rulings.

“It has already been expressed in the statement that the investigation over Myanmar by the ICC is not in accordance with international law,” he told reporters in the Myanmar capital Naypyitaw.

The court’s position is that because Myanmar’s alleged atrocities sent more than 700,000 Rohingya fleeing to Bangladesh for safety, it does have jurisdiction since Bangladesh is a party to the court and the case may involve forced deportation.

Last year’s statement charged that the court’s prosecutor, by claiming jurisdiction, was attempting “to override the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states.”

The 2018 statement also said Myanmar’s position was that it “has not deported any individuals in the areas of concern and in fact has worked hard in collaboration with Bangladesh to repatriate those displaced from their homes.”

However, there still has been no official repatriation of the Rohingya, and human rights activists charge that Myanmar has not established safe conditions for their return.

The Democratic chairmen of two House committees pledged Friday to investigate a report that President Donald Trump directed his personal attorney to lie to Congress about negotiations over a real estate project in Moscow during the 2016 election.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said “we will do what’s necessary to find out if it’s true.” He said the allegation that Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie in his 2017 testimony to Congress “in an effort to curtail the investigation and cover up his business dealings with Russia is among the most serious to date.”

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, said directing a subordinate to lie to Congress is a federal crime.

The report by BuzzFeed News, citing two unnamed law enforcement officials, says that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress and that Cohen regularly briefed Trump and his family on the Moscow project — even as Trump said he had no business dealings with Russia.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor says reading helped her reach the Supreme Court.

Sotomayor on Sunday celebrated the release of her two children's books by speaking to parents and children at the Newark Public Library in New Jersey.

The Star-Ledger of Newark reports she said she never dreamed she would become a Supreme Court justice because she didn't know what one was when she was a child. She says her mother made sure books were part of her upbringing.

Sotomayor's books, "Turning Pages: My Life Story" and "The Beloved World of Sonia Sotomayor!" examine how her family and her determination moved her through life.

Federal judges in New Jersey have struggled with a workload approaching 700 cases each, nearly double what's manageable, because of judicial vacancies. In Texas, close to a dozen district judgeships remain open, more than in any other state.

Senate confirmation of President Barack Obama's nominees slowed to a halt this election year, a common political occurrence for the final months of divided government with a Democratic president and a Republican-controlled Senate. The vacancy on the Supreme Court attracted the most attention as Republicans refused to even hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland, insisting that the choice to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February rests with the next president.

But more than 90 vacancies in the federal judiciary are taking a toll on judges, the courts and Americans seeking recourse. Obama has nominated replacements for more than half of those spots, including 44 nominees for the district court and seven for the appeals court. Yet the Senate has confirmed only nine district and appeals court judges this year — and only four since Scalia died.

For one week at the end of October, law schools, law firms, bar associations and other legal groups from Seattle to Boston and New York to New Orleans will recognize the work done by lawyers on behalf of the poor and underserved through a national pro bono celebration. 

Pro bono refers to legal work that lawyers do for free for the benefit of their communities.  This work can include representing individuals near the poverty line in civil cases that involve issues such as landlord-tenant disputes, child custody, veterans’ benefits and foreclosure. It can also include legal work on behalf of an organization that serves the poor, such as a homeless shelter.  In some communities, lawyers are deeply involved in the legal tasks of community economic development, providing counsel for start-up microenterprises and non-profit organizations that serve low-income communities.

The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service organizes the National Pro Bono Celebration, which is Oct. 24 - 30.  To date, local organizers have planned hundreds of events in nearly every state to highlight the year-round efforts of lawyers who try to meet the ever-growing legal needs of this country's most vulnerable citizens. These efforts are designed to increase pro bono participation and result in greater access to justice for Americans living on the social margins.  

America’s lawyers have a long tradition of providing pro bono service. Although any profession can make free service for the poor a part of its standard practice, it is the legal profession that includes pro bono as a core value.  The ABA has a goal calling for lawyers to spend 50 hours a year providing pro bono service.  We take pride knowing that lawyers are contributing an average of more than 40 hours a year of pro bono service to people of limited means.  

Pro bono work brings hope to the powerless and helps right the wrongs of injustice. While lawyers have contributed much, there is still more to be done. 

As part of the National Pro Bono Celebration, law schools, state and local bar associations, judicial groups and community development organizations have planned hundreds of free legal service events all around the country.  

Orange County lawyers will work 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Oct. 26 at several legal clinics in Costa Mesa, Irvine, La Habra, San Juan Capistrano and Santa Ana to help low-income residents with bankruptcy, foreclosure, domestic violence, eviction and immigration issues.  

The Immigration Clinic at the University of Miami School of Law will have an immigration symposium and educational event on deportation defense training.

In New Mexico, the 2nd Judicial District Pro Bono Group, JAG and military specialists, Law Access New Mexico, the state bar and the New Mexico School of Law will host a free legal fair focusing on veterans’ issues.  

In New Jersey, the Rutgers School of Law-Camden and the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey is launching a new pro bono project to help federal prisoners re-enter the community.  

Idaho is launching a new statewide Ask-A-Lawyer program that will be staffed 100 percent by government pro bono lawyers.  The organizers of this program plan to staff it every business day of the year.

In New York, the Nassau County Bar Association has organized a mortgage foreclosure free legal consultation clinic with Nassau County Homeownership Center, Nassau/Suffolk Law Committee, Community Development Corporation of Long Island and the New York State Attorney General Office. 

Volunteerism transcends politics. It is a central part of the call for action made by presidents from Kennedy to Reagan to Obama. The legal community asks everyone to join with us in volunteering to help the growing number of our neighbors who have fallen on hard times. The National Bureau of Economic Research recently declared the recession to be over, but recovery will be slow for many.  We all must stand ready to help when we can.  The American Bar Association encourages all lawyers to add some pro bono work to their portfolio.  Volunteer help is a renewable resource, independent of fossil fuels or the stock market, and it becomes stronger and more abundant with use.

If you are a person in need of pro bono assistance please go to: http://www.findlegalhelp.org

National security experts say serious threats from cyber and Internet terrorism that crosses geographic boundaries are rendering traditional methods of law enforcement and tracking elusive.

“Instead of a linear threat, we have diversified threats coming from all over,” said David S. Kris, the assistant attorney general for National Security at the U.S. Department of Justice.  “Organizations and individuals have become self-radicalized over the Internet, with aspirations to exert force on the United States and our interests outside.”  Kris noted that many are less organized and trained than traditional terrorists; however, they leave fewer footprints online, making it more difficult to decipher where threats are originating and how to effectively deal with them.

Speakers — all from federal agencies charged with national security — were part of the 20th Annual Review of the Field of National Security Law held at the Renaissance Hotel in Washington, D.C. on Nov. 4 and 5.

Robert Liff, general counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, noted that the legal framework in the United States is not keeping pace with the threats.  He likens the legal challenge to running as fast as you can to stay in the same place, in part because the delineation of power between intelligence agencies and law enforcement can be ambiguous.  Liff and others on the panel reinforced the necessity of having a dynamic legal framework in order to meet national security needs.

Because state boundaries and specific terrorist organization lines have become clouded, in many instances it is difficult to decide which law enforcement agency has jurisdiction over a given threat. 

”The president needs to decide which tool to use in different circumstances,” said Robert J. Eatinger Jr., acting deputy general counsel for Operations, CIA.  “Our policies need to be broad, permitting flexibility in our response,” he added.  “There is no clear rule book for intelligence,” Eatinger recommends law enforcement agencies work with Congress to engage “smartly and safely to sharpen tools in order to keep up with the changing security threat picture.”

Different agencies need to work together to enhance security and protect the U.S. against cyber threats,” said Joseph Maher, deputy general counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, who noted that terrorists go to great lengths to avoid security and tracking measures on the Internet and in cyberspace. They do not employ techniques that any one agency can protect against.  

According to the panel, issues of cyber security and the corresponding evolving threats continue to be a growing problem for the United States. In order to effectively mitigate these threats, more clarity in the law is needed, and guidelines for federal agencies need to be updated so that responsibilities can be better coordinated.  

Speakers were part of the 20th Annual Review of the Field of National Security Law on Nov. 4-5 co-sponsored by the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Law and National Security, the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, and the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University School of Law.

For further information, please contact:

Alexandra Buller
Division for Media Relations and Communication Services
American Bar Association
202/662-1508      
bullera@staff.abanet.org