A group of anonymous federal judges has responded sharply to the U.S. Supreme Court, criticizing it for frequently overruling lower court decisions. In a report by NBC News, twelve judges, appointed by presidents from both parties, including Trump, lamented this trend of emergency rulings that skip explanations. These judges are concerned that the Supreme Court is undermining their authority without justification.
One judge spoke out forcefully, saying, “It is inexcusable. They don’t have our backs.” This sentiment reflects a broader frustration over how the high court’s actions may cast doubt on the integrity of lower court judges. Ten out of the twelve judges involved stressed the need for more transparency when the Supreme Court decides to reverse their rulings, stating that such actions suggest incompetence among their ranks.
The judges’ criticisms come in light of the tense relationship between the judiciary and Trump’s administration. Lower court judges who have issued unfavorable decisions are increasingly the targets of harsh criticisms from high-ranking officials. For instance, when Judge James Boasberg blocked deportation flights to El Salvador, Trump expressed on social media that Boasberg should be “IMPEACHED.” White House aide Stephen Miller labeled the judges who countered Trump’s tariff plans as engaging in a “judicial coup.”
The situation has escalated to dangerous levels. One judge warned that continued public furor against judicial decisions could lead to violence, predicting that “somebody is going to die” if such rhetoric persists. Another judge mentioned that lower courts are being “thrown under the bus,” emphasizing the disconnect between the Supreme Court’s decisions and the realities faced by lower court judges.
A third judge echoed these feelings, pointing out a concerning pattern where the Supreme Court seems to frame their actions as part of a “judicial coup.” The criticism is not wholly one-sided; a fourth judge appointed by Obama acknowledged that some judges have overstepped their bounds in their opposition to Trump, citing a phenomenon he called “Trump derangement syndrome.” This judge articulated a view that some judges are letting their opinions about Trump interfere with their judicial responsibilities.
This internal conflict within the judiciary highlights a fractured relationship between different levels of the court system. The judges involved feel isolated, with a pervasive sense that the Supreme Court is leaving them “out to dry.” The dynamics of judicial authority, respect, and political influence are tightly interwoven in this discourse, raising questions about how these tensions will evolve moving forward.
The Supreme Court’s public information office has not released a comment in response to these criticisms, which leaves the door open for continued discussion and debate over the balance of power within the judicial branch. As controversies surrounding the judiciary grow, the potential for further conflict remains high, especially in an increasingly polarized political environment. The interplay between judgments, political rhetoric, and the repercussions on those involved will undoubtedly continue to shape the landscape of American jurisprudence.
"*" indicates required fields
