Dispelling three myths about public trust in the courts

Recent national polling highlights a series of takeaways of which courts should take notice: respondents with court experience reported an impact on their mental and financial well-being; even when people win their cases, many leave critical of the process; and courts should prioritize their resources to support the most serious matters before them.

The survey from the "Court & Communities" project at Pew was released in August 2025, and full information about the survey is available online. 

NCSC has been conducting similar surveys of public sentiment for over a decade. The State of the State Courts series is an excellent resource for those looking for insights into public opinion about the courts. 

Findings from both national projects reveal three popular myths about public trust in the courts.

Myth 1: Opinions about the courts are formed exclusively through news and social media. 

Reality: While many people derive their opinions about the courts through bold headlines about the latest decision coming out of Washington D.C., the Pew study reinforces lessons NCSC has learned from our own recent focus groups: more people than you might expect form their opinions from their own lived experience, or the experiences of a family member or friend. As we note in a report: "Many of our focus group participants brought their own lived experiences to the table. Whether the experience was their own or one recounted by a friend or family member, many of the stories shared were not from watching too much CSI or Judge Judy." The Pew poll finds that one in three U.S. adults live in households that had been involved in a court case, meaning that either the survey respondent or someone living with them has had a civil or criminal case before a state or local court, by either initiating or defending a case (most were defendants, not plaintiffs). Their survey also demonstrates how experience alters viewpoints — usually not for the better.

Myth 2: The more direct interaction people have with courts, the more likely they are to trust the courts.  

Reality: For many years, court leaders have relied on gaining increased trust by getting more people to court — to see how they work, serve on a jury, take a tour. Unfortunately, the empirical data — dating back decades — does not suggest this is a path to improved public trust. A 1978 survey for NCSC reached this gloomy conclusion: "Those having knowledge and experience with the courts voiced the greatest dissatisfaction and criticism." The Pew survey, all these years later, reaches a similar conclusion: Of those reporting a direct experience, 14% said their confidence increased, while 35% said it decreased. NCSC has found similar patterns in its State of the State Courts surveys.

Myth 3: Court staff do a poor job with public-facing customer service. 

Reality: How is it possible for court users to report reduced trust after they interact with the system if it's not the fault of judges and court staff? It turns out that court users are frustrated by process, complex procedure, and legal jargon, but not by the people who serve them. Most have empathy for the people who work in the court system. NCSC's survey work reinforces the idea that it's the process, not the people, that are the problem. Our 2024 survey, for instance, found that most respondents agreed that "hard working" described the state courts well or very well.  The Pew survey also highlights this differentiation nicely, with 52% of those with direct court experience citing navigability as either "a little" or "very" hard. In short: it's the process, not the people.