This chapter examines the downstream consequences of ideological conflict between the Supreme Court and the American public, arguing that perceived disagreement directly shapes public attitudes toward the institution. Using survey data that measures the ideological distance between citizens’ own policy preferences and their perceptions of the Court’s rulings, the chapter analyzes three key outcomes: approval, legitimacy, and support for institutional reform. The analysis reveals that as perceived ideological disagreement widens, public approval of the Court declines sharply, particularly among Democrats and the politically knowledgeable. While the Court’s more fundamental legitimacy proves more resilient, it also erodes in the face of sustained ideological conflict. Crucially, this dissatisfaction translates into tangible political pressure, as greater disagreement strongly predicts increased public support for Court-curbing measures like term limits and Court expansion. The 2022 Dobbs decision serves as a powerful case study, illustrating how a single, salient ruling can crystallize perceptions of ideological divergence, leading to a polarized decline in the Court’s institutional standing. Ultimately, the findings demonstrate that a Court seen as ideologically distant from the public risks not only its popularity but also its structural independence.