probability panel
Marquette Law School Poll
Marquette Law School Poll national Supreme Court survey (July 2026) · Jul 22–29, 2026 · US national
Methodology
- Pollster
- Marquette Law School Poll academic
- Sponsor
- Marquette University Law School
- Fielded
- Jul 22–29, 2026
- Population
- adults
- Sample size
- 1,076
- Sample frame
- probability panel
- Panel
- SSRS Opinion Panel
- Mode
- online - SSRS Opinion Panel, a probability-based panel recruited via the SSRS Omnibus poll and address-based sampling
- Margin of error
- +/-3.2 percentage points (full sample)
- Weighting
- weighted on demographics plus recalled vote, home ownership, number of adults in household, and partisan identification benchmarked to the Pew National Public Opinion Reference Survey
- Geography
- US national
- Base notes
- 886 registered voters (MoE +/-3.5); 572 likely voters (+/-4.4); 451 Republicans (+/-4.9); 452 Democrats (+/-4.9); 172 independents (+/-7.9)
Sources
Verification note. Question wording, totals and party percentages retrieved from the Marquette Law School Poll release. Marquette reports this favor/oppose item two-way (summing to 100), so undecideds are excluded. The full topline and crosstab PDFs were not separately retrieved, so party-column Ns are unknown. This is the most recent poll in this sweep and the closest to the 2026 midterms. || Toplines read from Marquette's MLSPSC34 topline HTML; party breaks from the MLSPSC34 crosstab file ('party ID, leaners as partisans'). Sample size and MOE from Marquette's own release. || Toplines and party breaks read from the Marquette release. Question stems were rendered by the fetch in partial form (the release paraphrases within a Supreme Court battery), so wording is marked not fully verbatim. A separately reported figure from this release - 63% saying such state laws should be found constitutional vs. 37% saying they violate equal protection - is recorded here as an unverified third question. || Toplines and party breaks read from the Marquette release. Question stems were rendered by the fetch in partial form (the release paraphrases within a Supreme Court battery), so wording is marked not fully verbatim. The 63/37 constitutionality result that some secondary summaries attach to this wave in fact belongs to Marquette's May 20-26, 2026 national survey and is recorded there (marquette-2026-05-national). || WORDING RECOVERY SWEEP AND MATERIAL CORRECTION. The database recorded this as a plain favor/oppose item about state laws. Marquette's published questionnaire (item C15) shows it is a Supreme Court DECISION item: respondents are told the Court ruled such laws do not violate the Equal Protection Clause and are then asked how much they favor or oppose that decision. Wording from the instrument PDF; results from the Court Topics press release, Tables 14-15.
Figures below are transcribed from these documents. Where they disagree with the source, the source governs.
Questions asked (7)
reaction to the June 2026 Supreme Court decision upholding state bans on transgender girls and women in girls'/women's sports
Asked within Marquette's battery on recent Supreme Court decisions.
In June, the Supreme Court ruled that state laws that prohibit transgender girls and women from participating on girls' and women's sports teams do not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. How much do you favor or oppose this decision?
Wording notes: the stem announces the Court's holding before asking for an opinion, which introduces a status-quo/authority cue that typically raises agreement | reported two-way with undecideds excluded | 'transgender girls and women' rather than a birth-sex framing - comparatively affirming language for this issue
neutral — The wording describes the holding accurately and in the affirming side's preferred terminology. The main non-neutral feature is structural rather than lexical: telling respondents the Court has already ruled tends to pull opinion toward the ruling, so the 65% favor share is likely somewhat higher than a decision-blind version would produce.
Subgroup figures (12)
Political salienceparaphrasedforced choice
news attention to the Supreme Court transgender sports case
[How much have you heard or read about this case?]
Wording reconstructed from: Reconstructed from Marquette's reporting of the response categories; the literal attention-item stem was not published in the release
Heard or read a little
49%
Heard or read a lot
37%
Heard nothing at all
15%
Wording notes: attention items are subject to over-reporting | no 'not sure' option reported
neutral — Standard three-point attention scale. Worth recording for this sweep because 15% reported hearing nothing at all about a Supreme Court ruling on the issue Republicans had spent most heavily advertising on - a direct measure of the ceiling on the issue's reach.
Chiles v. Salazar (decided): favor/oppose the ruling that Colorado's conversion-therapy ban regulates speech by viewpoint
A Colorado law restricts mental health therapists from trying to change the gender identity or sexual orientation of clients under age 18, often called "conversion therapy." In March, the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado's law banning conversion therapy, as applied to talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint, and the lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny. How much do you favor or oppose this decision?
Wording notes: dense First Amendment vocabulary ('regulates speech based on viewpoint', 'sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny') | does not state what the practical effect on conversion-therapy bans would be | describes the law as restricting therapists
unclear — The item is written in doctrinal language and never says that the ruling makes conversion-therapy bans harder to sustain, so the response is closer to a reaction to legal framing than to a measured view of conversion therapy. Cross-party results are unusually compressed, consistent with that reading.
Subgroup figures (12)
how much heard or read about the Supreme Court decision on transgender athletes
[A Supreme Court decision that states can ban transgender athletes from participating on girls and women's teams] Here are some recent topics in the news. How much have you heard or read about each of these?
A little
49%
A lot
37%
Nothing at all
15%
Wording notes: the bracketed stimulus paraphrases the holding as 'states can ban transgender athletes from participating on girls and women's teams', which is blunter than the decision item's own wording
neutral — Standard three-point awareness item; the summary used here is more categorical than the wording used in the favor/oppose item in the same survey.
Subgroup figures (9)
state laws prohibiting transgender girls and women from girls'/women's teams
How much do you favor or oppose state laws prohibiting transgender girls and women from participating on girls' and women's sports teams?
Wording reconstructed from: Marquette release, August 5, 2026 - stem reconstructed from the release's rendering; not confirmed against a topline PDF.
Wording notes: uses 'transgender girls and women', not 'biological males' | asks about state laws prohibiting participation, so favor = restrictive | restricted to girls'/women's teams | level of sport not specified | no middle option in the reported result
neutral — policy stated in its own terms with the affected group named non-pejoratively
Subgroup figures (6)
Political salienceparaphrasedother
awareness of the Supreme Court decision allowing states to limit transgender athletes
How much have you heard or read about the decision that states can limit transgender athletes from playing on women's and girls' teams?
Wording reconstructed from: Marquette release, August 5, 2026 - stem reconstructed from the release.
A little
49%
A lot
37%
Nothing at all
15%
Wording notes: awareness/salience item, not an opinion item
neutral — standard three-point awareness scale
attention to the Supreme Court's trans-athletes decision
Here are some recent topics in the news. How much have you heard or read about each?
A little
49%
A lot
37%
Nothing at all
15%
Wording notes: attention item, not an attitude item
neutral — standard news-attention item