Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsDomestic Policy3yrs ago

Should Supreme Court justices be prohibited from making financial transactions with people who have a vested interest in court outcomes?

In 2023 Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch were criticized after news articles revealed they had personal financial transactions with people who had interest in court decisions. Politico reported that Justice Gorsuch sold a vacation property to the CEO of a prominent law firm which often brings cases before the court. ProPublica that a Texas oil executive had purchased multiple properties from Justice Thomas which the justice did not disclose. The Supreme Court sets its own ethics rules and leaves justices to make their own decisions about when and how to report outside gifts and income.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 45.2k America voters.

88%
Yes
12%
No

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 45.2k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 45.2k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from America voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9DM5VBPfrom Maine  answered…3yrs3Y

Abolish the supreme court

 @9C69K68 from Georgia  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, and abolish the Supreme Court.

 @9GZDTYY from Maryland  answered…3yrs3Y

No, it is the duty of the justices of the Supreme Court to be completely unbiased and fair in their decisions, which is encouraged by the fact that getting onto the Supreme Court is the last career move for a justice. The justices should not be prohibited from making transactions with people who have a vested interest in court outcomes because the justice shouldn't be influenced by such things anyway, and if they are then that means that Congress failed in their interview and the FBI failed in their investigation to prove the nature of the justice, or that the president made a politically motivated decision in their recess appointment of a justice. And of course, if a justice is truly not being unbiased and is accepting bribes from parties with vested interest(s) in the court ruling(s), judicial impeachment exists for that reason.

 Deleted from  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, and abolish the supreme court

 @9RXP9KX from Michigan  answered…2yrs2Y

No, in that a justice can accept gifts from outside influencers but not actually vote the way they want them to

 @BCTS26Q from Georgia  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, this has the potential to cause biased decision-making and further corruption in our court system.

 @4QTF4T9 answered…3yrs3Y

Supreme Court justices be prohibited from making financial transactions, above a specified amount, with people who have a vested interest in court outcomes. For example, a justice should be able to buy an airline ticket from an airline and later hear a case involving that airline. Gifts from people who have a vested interest in court outcomes should be severely limited.

 @9D3RPBQfrom Guam  answered…3yrs3Y

It should be strictly prohibited, and court justices should be heavily regulated

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Elizabeth Warren Walks Back Murder Comments

Congressional Democrats broadly denounced the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson Friday morning, after Republicans started accusing Sen. Elizabeth Warren of excusing violence.“No one's condoning this,” said Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.). “Violence never is the right answer for anything. And it was a horrible murder, a tragic loss for his family.” Warren this week condemned the shooting, but added that people “can be pushed only so far.”"We'll say it over and over," Warren said on MSNBC’S “The ReidOut.” " Violence is never the answer. This guy [Luigi Mangione] gets a trial who's allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealth, but you can only push people so far, and then they start to take matters into their own hands."In a statement to POLITICO, Warren said, “Violence is never the answer. Period. I should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder.” Top Republicans denounced Warren's comments and the walked-back rhetoric, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) calling it “inappropriate and dangerous.”Some House Democrats asked about the incident on Thursday pivoted the conversation to discuss policy options on health care or gun safety.“I don't really know that this is really a space that Congress normally weighs in on,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). “But at the end of the day, I think it’s an opportunity, because now people are talking about health care and to talk about the fact that this industry has honestly not been as helpful as it could be.”“Violence is never the answer,” said Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.). “We know that there are people suffering, there’s great challenges in healthcare. There's great challenges, and people have, in fact, been wronged, but a process of governance is the way to address that, not violence.”And Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) who denounced the murder, said the killer should be prosecuted and that “I do know that allegedly a ghost gun was used, and we should also ban ghost guns. There's no reason for them beyond the streets.”

▲  1614 replies

About This Data

Based on 45.2k responses to this question.

These results come from iSideWith's ongoing political issues survey. We collect over a million responses per day, filter out duplicate and multiple submissions, and break the results down by political party, ideology, age, state, and census demographics (income, race, education, household).

iSideWith is non-partisan — we don't advocate for any party, candidate, or position. We report what the public tells us.

Read Our Full Methodology →

Cite Or Embed This Poll

Writing about this issue? Use the live data and link back to the full results.

Cite This Poll

iSideWith. (2026). “Should Supreme Court justices be prohibited from making financial transactions with people who have a vested interest in court outcomes?” — Public Opinion Poll Results. Retrieved June 26, 2026, from https://www.isidewith.com/polls/4956556551

Embed The Live Result

Preview