Federal Judges Warn of Judicial Crisis Amid Supreme Court’s Handling of Trump Cases

WASHINGTON — A growing number of federal judges are expressing profound frustration and concern over the Supreme Court’s handling of cases involving the current Trump administration, particularly its frequent use of swift, unexplained rulings that overturn lower court decisions. These ‘shadow docket’ interventions, judges warn, are undermining the integrity of the judiciary, validating political attacks, and leaving lower courts vulnerable to escalating threats.

In rare interviews, federal judges from across the country, appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, pointed to a clear pattern since President Donald Trump took office again in January 2025. They meticulously research complex cases, only to see their rulings against the administration swiftly rejected by the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, often with minimal or no explanation. This practice, they argue, makes their work appear shoddy and biased, fueling harsh criticism from Trump and his allies.

The ‘shadow docket,’ a term for emergency cases fast-tracked outside the Supreme Court’s normal appeals process, has seen a dramatic increase in recent years, especially under the current administration. While these decisions are often consequential, they frequently lack the detailed reasoning provided in full oral arguments, leaving lower court judges without crucial guidance.

Concerns about judicial safety are also paramount. The U.S. Marshals Service reported over 400 threat investigations against judges by June of this year, continuing a steady rise seen since 2021. Judges involved in high-profile cases, especially those ruling against the Trump administration, report an increase in violent threats, with one judge warning, ‘somebody is going to die’ if the situation isn’t addressed.

Many judges believe Chief Justice John Roberts, as head of the U.S. Judicial Conference, should do more to defend the judiciary. While Roberts has occasionally spoken out against attacks on judges, some argue his efforts are insufficient given the perceived systemic undermining. Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh have also weighed in on the issue, reflecting internal divisions over the shadow docket’s use and the clarity of its rulings.

Despite some internal debate within the Supreme Court about the necessity of terse decisions, lower court judges emphasize their need for clear, well-reasoned guidance. They contend that while being overturned is part of the job, the lack of explanation in these high-stakes emergency rulings erodes public confidence and leaves the foundation of the justice system vulnerable.

阅读中文版 (Read Chinese Version)

Disclaimer: This content is aggregated from public sources online. Please verify information independently. If you believe your rights have been infringed, contact us for removal.