Federal judges anonymously criticize Supreme Court for overturning decisions with emergency rulings

[mystery-ak]

Federal judges anonymously criticize Supreme Court for overturning decisions with emergency rulings
One judge received death threats for rulings countering Trump's agenda, predicts 'somebody is going to die'
By Anders Hagstrom Fox News
Published September 4, 2025 7:49am EDT

A group of anonymous federal judges is criticizing the Supreme Court for overturning lower court rulings and siding with President Donald Trump's administration with little to no explanation, NBC News reported Thursday.

NBC spoke with 12 federal judges, appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents including Trump, who pointed to a trend of lower court decisions being overturned by emergency rulings from the high court. These cases often see prominent members of Trump's administration lashing out at lower court judges before their cases are overturned.

Ten of the 12 judges argued the Supreme Court should offer more explanation when overturning such decisions, saying emergency rulings in such cases imply poor work on the part of lower court judges.

"It is inexcusable," one judge said of the Supreme Court. "They don’t have our backs."

That judge also said they have received death threats for issuing rulings that counter Trump's agenda. Trump himself and some of his top officials have spoken out against judges issuing unfavorable rulings.

When Judge James Boasberg sought to block the administration's deportation flights to El Salvador, Trump argued he should be "IMPEACHED" on social media.

When various judges issued rulings blocking Trump's tariff agenda in March, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller argued it was a "judicial coup."

more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judges-anonymously-criticize-supreme-court-overturning-decisions-emergency-rulings

[Timber Rattler]

Ten of the 12 judges argued the Supreme Court should offer more explanation when overturning such decisions, saying emergency rulings in such cases imply poor work on the part of lower court judges.

Well, if the shoe fits...

Maybe this will finally encourage Roberts to slap them down even more forcefully.

Probably not.

[DefiantMassRINO]

WTF?  These lower court judges are out of control.

The Supreme Court needs to pistol whip some of these Constitution-hating lib judges.

Either the judges get in line with the US Constitution and result of democratic elections, or have them impeached.

It's one thing to defy the Executive or the Legislative, it's a completely different matter when they defy their own superiors.

Those 'brave' anonymous judges are no different than an organized crime crew that gets out of line with the Boss.  The Boss needs to whack them before the rebellious crew whacks him.

[Timber Rattler]

Right on, and I wasn't aware that it was the Supreme Court's job to "have the backs" of the lower court judges.

 

[Fishrrman]

As I've posted numerous times in this forum previously, neither John Roberts acting alone, nor all the Supreme Court justices, acting together, can "resolve" this.

That "solution" must come, can ONLY come, from the Executive -- Mr. Trump.

With the issuance of "The Trump Doctrine" concerning the power of federal trial and appellate judges, insofar as their rulings and injunctions pertain to the power of the presidency...

[rustynail]

As I've posted numerous times in this forum previously, neither John Roberts acting alone, nor all the Supreme Court justices, acting together, can "resolve" this.

That "solution" must come, can ONLY come, from the Executive -- Mr. Trump.

With the issuance of "The Trump Doctrine" concerning the power of federal trial and appellate judges, insofar as their rulings and injunctions pertain to the power of the presidency...

Congress created these courts.  Congress can control or abolish these courts.  These rogue courts are not displeasing to the interests of the politician in congress.

[Kamaji]

Congress created these courts.  Congress can control or abolish these courts.  These rogue courts are not displeasing to the interests of the politician in congress.

No, not really.  Article III courts are not administrative courts that are Congress’ playthings.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

No, not really.  Article III courts are not administrative courts that are Congress’ playthings.

Care to point out where in Art III you gain such wisdom?

What I read says all courts but the Supreme Court are ordained and established by
Congress.

It is unambiguous and, in the wisdom of The Founders, carefully constructed so they are accountable to representatives of the People.

[Kamaji]

Care to point out where in Art III you gain such wisdom?

What I read says all courts but the Supreme Court are ordained and established by
Congress

Because once the courts are created, the Constitution vests them with the full judicial power of the U.S. and they cannot be disciplined except through impeachment.   They cannot even be given a pay cut. 


Congress could certainly abolish the existing courts and then recreate a whole new court system, and then have the president appoint new judges to the new courts, but the existing judges from the old courts would still be judges and still be entitled to draw their pay and benefits, whether they were actively hearing cases or not.

What Congress cannot do - but what certain posters obviously want Congress to do - is to micromanage the lower courts by telling them how they can and cannot exercise the judicial power of the U.S.  That is something Congress cannot do, and it is why a whole plethora of specialized administrative Article I courts have been created by Congress - because those it can control.