The United States Supreme Court, once portrayed by reporters as a bastion of impartiality and legal tradition, has become the subject of intensely political news coverage in recent years. While the Court has always ruled on matters of national political consequence—from landmark cases on elections, civil rights, and abortion to debates on free speech—the nature of its media portrayal has fundamentally changed. This shift was catalyzed by the events of 2016: the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Republican-controlled Senate’s refusal to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland, and the subsequent politicization of the nomination process.

As studies by leading political scientists, including Joshua Boston of Bowling Green State University and Christopher Krewson of Brigham Young University, reveal, the press now increasingly frames Supreme Court coverage using explicit political language. Newspaper articles emphasize the ideological identities of justices, the party affiliation of their appointing presidents, and the partisan stakes at play, both in their decisions and appointments. The implications of this new framing are profound—not only for the reputation of the Court, but also for its influence and public legitimacy.

A Historical Perspective: From Legal Institution to Political Arena

For much of the late 20th century, major newspapers such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal discussed the Supreme Court in predominantly legal, not political, terms. Even after pivotal cases like Bush v. Gore in 2000—which effectively decided the outcome of the presidential race—media reports tended to avoid overtly labeling the justices as conservative or liberal, or making explicit connections to the partisan backgrounds of their appointments. Headlines and coverage focused on reasoning and votes, not the presumed political motives of the Court.

As Boston and Krewson’s research indicates, newspaper articles from this era rarely referenced the party of a nominating president or attached ideological labels such as “Democrat,” “Republican,” “liberal,” or “conservative” to Supreme Court decisions. This framing reinforced a prevailing public belief: that Supreme Court decisions were guided by neutral legal analysis, not political preference. Public support for the Court remained strong, even in the aftermath of controversial decisions like Bush v. Gore, reflecting accumulated goodwill and perceptions of above-the-fray legalism.

The 2016 Turning Point: Scalia’s Death and the Garland Blockade

The landscape changed abruptly in February 2016 with Justice Scalia’s passing. Recognized as a conservative icon, Scalia’s absence positioned the Court’s ideological balance at a critical juncture. President Obama swiftly nominated Merrick Garland—a well-respected, moderate federal judge—as Scalia’s replacement. However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, citing the proximity of the presidential election, refused to hold confirmation hearings or a vote on Garland’s nomination. This unprecedented blockade thrust the Court into the center of the national political debate and made the issue of judicial appointments a central theme in the 2016 presidential campaign, with then-candidate Donald Trump vowing to appoint a justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

The immediate aftermath saw a spike in how the press covered the Court’s story. According to the data analyzed by Boston and Krewson, the average number of explicit political frames in news articles referencing the Supreme Court more than tripled, and this more political tone has persisted ever since. Before 2016, newspaper coverage only rarely used political descriptors when discussing the justices or their rulings; now, such language has become routine.

Measuring the Shift: Political Framing by the Numbers

Boston and Krewson’s content analysis of five major newspapers from 1980 to 2023 found that the average number of political frames per Supreme Court-related article rose from roughly 3.2 the day before Scalia’s death to nearly 10.5 in the days following. On an annual basis, political references in Court coverage grew by 50% from 2015 to 2016 and have remained elevated through the Court’s subsequent dramatic decisions. This kind of framing—identifying rulings as “conservative” or “liberal,” associating justices with the party of the president who nominated them, and describing the Court in partisan terms—now dominates news stories about the institution.

This development aligns with broader trends of polarization in American politics and media. Public trust in the judiciary has plummeted: Gallup’s 2023 polling found Supreme Court approval sitting at historic lows, with only 41% of Americans expressing confidence in the institution. Other recent surveys have echoed these results, showing that perceptions about the Court are now tightly linked to party identity and views on hot-button issues such as abortion, gun rights, and voting access.

The Consequences: Declining Trust and Shifting Perceptions

The framing adopted by the media carries real-world consequences. Research repeatedly finds that when Supreme Court decisions are described in partisan terms, public trust and approval drop, especially among those who view the Court as unduly influenced by politics. Americans have traditionally wanted a legal Court, not a political one—but as media coverage signals growing ideological consistency and partisanship, confidence erodes.

The pattern of decisions by the Roberts Court in recent years has reinforced these perceptions. Critical rulings—including the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade, significant shifts on gun rights, voting laws, and affirmative action—have fallen largely along predictable ideological lines. With three conservative justices appointed under President Trump, the Court’s balance has moved rightward, fueling further assertions of partisanship in both reporting and popular perception.

Looking Forward: The Supreme Court’s Public Standing

As the Supreme Court begins hearing cases for the 2024 session, including those on presidential immunity and federal regulatory power, political framing is likely to intensify. Meanwhile, controversies about judicial ethics, such as questions about undisclosed gifts and travel for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, have only added to the impression of a Court at the center of political controversy. Calls for greater transparency and potential reforms—from term limits to new recusal standards—reflect growing concern among voters and lawmakers about the Court’s insulation from the political pressures that dominate other government branches.

Yet, while the current environment has made the Supreme Court more visible—and arguably more accountable—the challenges to its authority and legitimacy are profound. Experts note that if the media’s political framing persists, and the Court continues to deliver decisions that align closely with partisan agendas, it may face further erosion of public trust. In this changing media and political landscape, the Court must navigate not only the law but also the realm of public perception and confidence.