A cadre of federal judges has stepped forward with sharp criticism of the Supreme Court for repeatedly overturning lower court decisions, often in favor of the Trump administration, without providing sufficient reasoning.
According to Fox News, twelve federal judges, appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, spoke anonymously to NBC News about a troubling pattern of emergency rulings from the high court. These reversals, they argue, often come with little explanation and cast doubt on the quality of their own judicial work.
The judges’ frustration is palpable, with ten of the twelve insisting that the Supreme Court owes more transparency when issuing such decisions. They believe these quick interventions undermine the integrity of the lower courts and leave them exposed to public scorn.
One judge didn’t mince words, calling the Supreme Court’s approach “inexcusable” and lamenting that “they don’t have our backs.” Such a statement reveals a deep sense of betrayal, though it’s worth asking if the high court’s role is to coddle lower judges or to correct what it sees as legal missteps.
Another judge felt the Supreme Court’s actions imply a “judicial coup,” echoing criticism from Trump’s deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, who used the same term when tariff rulings went against the administration in March. While the phrase is charged, it’s hard to ignore the pattern of lower courts being overruled in high-stakes cases tied to executive policy.
The personal toll on judges is also evident, with one claiming to have received death threats after rulings countering Trump’s agenda. If true, this is a grave concern, but it raises the question of whether public criticism from political figures directly fuels such hostility or merely reflects existing tensions.
President Trump himself has not held back, publicly calling for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg after the judge attempted to halt deportation flights to El Salvador. Such fiery rhetoric from the top is a reminder that judicial decisions aren’t made in a vacuum, though it’s debatable whether this crosses into undue pressure on the judiciary.
Stephen Miller’s earlier comment about a “judicial coup” during the tariff disputes only adds fuel to the fire, painting lower court rulings as a coordinated attack on executive power. While his words are sharp, they tap into a frustration many feel when unelected judges seem to obstruct a duly elected administration’s agenda.
One judge even warned that “somebody is going to die” if criticism from Trump and his officials persists, a chilling prediction that underscores the high stakes of these clashes. Yet, without concrete evidence linking rhetoric to violence, this claim risks sounding more like fear than forecast.
Not all judges are aligned in their criticism, as one appointed by President Barack Obama admitted that some rulings against Trump may have overstepped judicial bounds. This judge pointed to a “Trump derangement syndrome” among peers, suggesting that personal disdain for the president or his style clouds legal judgment—a candid observation that cuts through the usual posturing.
The same judge acknowledged a “strong sense” in the judiciary that the Supreme Court is “leaving them out to dry,” though they added that this feeling is only “partially right.” It’s a rare moment of balance, admitting that while the high court’s actions sting, some lower court decisions might indeed warrant reversal.
Another judge bluntly stated that lower courts are being “thrown under the bus” by the Supreme Court’s emergency rulings. While the imagery is striking, it sidesteps whether those rulings are legally justified, which should be the core of this debate over hurt feelings.
The tension between the Supreme Court and lower courts reflects a broader struggle over who ultimately shapes policy through legal interpretation. It’s a fair concern that emergency rulings without detailed explanations erode trust in the judicial process, but the high court’s prerogative to act swiftly in critical cases can’t be dismissed.
For those wary of unchecked power, the criticism from Trump and his allies might seem a necessary counterweight to judicial overreach, especially when lower courts block key administration goals like tariffs or deportations. Yet, the personal attacks and threats reported by judges are a troubling side effect that no one should ignore.
This clash isn’t just about legal minutiae; it’s about the delicate balance of authority in a system where every branch fights for its turf. As these anonymous voices remind us, the judiciary isn’t immune to political heat, but expecting the Supreme Court to play nice might be asking for a courtesy that justice doesn’t always afford.
