Federal Judge ,Criticizes Supreme Court’s Handling of Trump Cases
In an unusual turn of events, a number of federal judges have criticized the Supreme Court’s handling of cases involving the Trump administration. In rare interviews with NBC News, a dozen judges expressed their frustration over the high court’s practice of overturning lower court rulings with little to no explanation, a trend they say undermines the integrity of the judiciary.
The “Shadow Docket” and Its Impact
The judges’ primary concern revolves around the increased use of the “shadow docket”—a term coined in 2015 to describe the Supreme Court’s emergency rulings. These rulings are made quickly, often with minimal or no explanation, in contrast to the court’s standard, more transparent process.
Historically, such emergency cases were rare, typically limited to last-minute appeals from death row inmates. However, the Trump administration has frequently used this channel to challenge lower court decisions, prompting the Supreme Court to grant these emergency requests in a majority of cases. Ten of the 12 judges interviewed believe this practice leaves them without proper legal guidance and, more critically, validates the Trump administration’s criticisms of their work as biased or shoddy.
Under Pressure: Threats and Criticism
The judiciary is facing unprecedented pressure, with a significant rise in threats against judges and their families. The U.S. Marshals Service reported a steady increase in threat investigations, from 224 in fiscal year 2021 to 457 in fiscal year 2023. These threats are often linked to influential figures, including President Donald Trump himself, who has publicly criticized judges who rule against him. One judge, who has received threats, stated that if the situation isn’t addressed, “somebody is going to die.”
Some judges feel the Supreme Court, and specifically Chief Justice John Roberts, should do more to defend the lower courts. They argue that the high court’s actions essentially “throw them under the bus” and, in effect, endorse the claims of a “judicial coup” by the administration.
A Divided Judiciary
While many judges share these concerns, not all agree. One judge, appointed by former President Barack Obama, acknowledged the frustration but also suggested that some lower court judges might be overstepping their bounds. This judge stated that while judges are “partially right” to feel the way they do, “the whole ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ is a real issue,” suggesting that some judges may be letting their personal feelings about Trump influence their rulings.
The ongoing tension highlights a significant rift within the judiciary and raises questions about the long-term implications for the rule of law and the public’s perception of judicial impartiality. The financial and political implications of these legal battles, particularly those involving executive orders and major policy changes, are a key concern for markets and investors seeking legal clarity.
Published on 10/09/2025
By Nicholas.