probability panel
Marquette Law School Poll
Marquette Law School Poll national Supreme Court survey · Jul 7–12, 2023 · US national
Methodology
- Pollster
- Marquette Law School Poll academic
- Sponsor
- Marquette University Law School
- Fielded
- Jul 7–12, 2023
- Population
- adults
- Sample size
- 1,005
- Sample frame
- probability panel
- Panel
- SSRS Opinion Panel
- Mode
- online - SSRS Opinion Panel, a national probability sample with interviews conducted online (Marquette's own description)
- Margin of error
- ±4 percentage points
- Geography
- US national
Sources
Verification note. Toplines read from Marquette's MLSPSC15 topline HTML; Bostock confirmed against the MLSPSC28 trend topline. Sample size and MOE from Marquette's own release. Party crosstabs not retrieved for this wave.
Figures below are transcribed from these documents. Where they disagree with the source, the source governs.
Questions asked (4)
Bostock v. Clayton County - workplace protections for gay and transgender workers
In 2020 the Supreme Court ruled that a federal civil rights law protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination. How much do you favor or oppose this decision?
Wording notes: bundles sexual orientation and gender identity into one item | describes an existing Court holding rather than an abstract policy
neutral — Neutral description of the holding; 'favor or oppose this decision' is symmetric. Because gay and transgender workers are bundled, the item cannot isolate attitudes toward gender identity alone.
perceived direction of Supreme Court rulings on LGBT people's rights over 15 years
[Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people] Over the past 15 years or so would you say the Supreme Court has generally expanded or reduced the rights protected for each of these groups or has it not changed much either way?
Expanded rights
56%
Reduced rights
25%
Has not changed much either way
19%
Wording notes: group label explicitly includes transgender people | item is about perception of the Court, not the respondent's own policy view
neutral — Balanced three-way perception item with an explicit middle option.
policy proposal: require transgender athletes to compete on teams matching sex assigned at birth
[Require that transgender athletes compete on teams that match the sex they were assigned at birth, not the gender they identify with] Which of the following proposals would you favor and which would you oppose?
Wording notes: uses 'the sex they were assigned at birth' | restrictive alternative is the only one stated | no middle option
neutral — Only the restrictive proposal is described; favor/oppose format.
policy proposal: ban gender-affirming care such as hormone therapy or surgery for minors under 18
[Ban "gender-affirming" care such as hormone therapy or surgery for transgender minors under 18] Which of the following proposals would you favor and which would you oppose?
Wording notes: scare quotes around "gender-affirming" | names hormone therapy and surgery but not puberty blockers | restrictive alternative is the only one stated | no middle option
neutral — Scare-quoting the term 'gender-affirming' signals contestation of the practice's framing; only the ban is described, so the affirming position is unnamed.