THE SURVEY, WHICH WAS CARRIED OUT BETWEEN AUGUST 1975 AND FEBRUARY 1976, MEASURED BOTH SPECIFIC SUPPORT AND DIFFUSE SUPPORT. SPECIFIC SUPPORT REFERS TO REACTIONS TO INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS OR JUDICIAL POLICIES. DIFFUSE SUPPORT ENCOMPASSES GENERAL ATTITUDES. JUDGES WERE ASKED WHETHER THERE WAS ANYTHING THE SUPREME COURT HAD DONE RECENTLY THAT THEY PARTICULARLY LIKED OR DISLIKED. RESPONSES COVERED SUCH AREAS AS CRIMINAL JUSTICE, FIRST AMENDMENT DECISIONS, EQUAL PROTECTION OR LAWS, JUDICIAL STYLE, FEDERALISM, REAPPORTIONMENT, AND BILL OR RIGHTS. THE SUPREME COURT RECEIVED MORE SPECIFIC SUPPORT FROM FEDERAL JUDGES THAN FROM STATE JUDGES. STATE JUDGES TENDED TO BE FAIRLY INDIFFERENT, WHILE FEDERAL JUDGES WERE MORE EXTREME IN THEIR EVALUATIONS. JUDGES WERE ALSO ASKED THEIR VIEWS OF THE SUPREME COURT AS AN INSTITUTION WITH REGARD TO PERFORMANCE, NEUTRALITY, NONPARTISANSHIP, AND COMPETENCE IN CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION. THE SUPREME COURT RECEIVED CONSIDERABLE DIFFUSE SUPPORT FROM BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL JUDGES, WITH SUPPORT FAR OUTWEIGHING ALIENATION OR OPPOSITION. COMPARISON OF DIFFUSE AND SPECIFIC SUPPORT SCORES FOR THE JUDGES WITH SIMILAR SCORES FOR SAMPLES OF CONGRESSIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS, PRACTICING LAWYERS, UNIVERSITY STUDENTS, POLITICAL ATTENTIVES, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC REVEALS LITTLE QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCE AMONG THE VARIOUS PUBLICS OF THE SUPREME COURT. SUPPORTING DATA ARE INCLUDED.