Why are federal judges criticizing SCOTUS?
Supreme Court issues Trump case rulings 'with little explanation'


The work of judging was once simple. The Supreme Court would set rulings, and lower-court judges would follow its precedents. That pattern has been upended in the Trump administration, sparking a conflict between federal judges and the high court.
Lower-court judges are "frustrated" with the Supreme Court and its handling of cases involving President Donald Trump, said NBC News. They say a pattern has emerged: Courts take on cases against Trump. Judges "painstakingly research the law" and often rule against the administration, which appeals to the high court, which in turn makes emergency "shadow docket" rulings with "little to no explanation." Lower-court judges say that vagueness leaves them in the dark about how they are supposed to apply the law. The Supreme Court is supposed to give "well-reasoned, bright-line guidance" to lower courts, an anonymous judge said to NBC, but now rulings often come with "breathtaking speed" and "minimal explanation."
Some judges compare the Supreme Court's approach to Trump cases to Calvinball, the "fictional game without rules," said Axios. They echo Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who last month suggested her colleagues follow precisely one rule in their jurisprudence: "This administration always wins."
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
What did the commentators say?
The Supreme Court has been using a "shadow docket" to make its rulings "increasingly often," said Mark Guzelian at Harvard Political Review. Those decisions come "without oral arguments or a formal signed opinion with legal reasoning," as opposed to "merit docket" decisions in which the court is transparent about its reasoning so that lower-court judges can apply the law. That presents "dangers to the future of the law" in the U.S. and "could have the unintended effect of decreasing confidence in an already unpopular Supreme Court."
Lower courts are "never free to defy" the Supreme Court's rulings, said Justice Neil Gorsuch in a recent case. But high court justices are handing down "thinly (or entirely un-)explained rulings" and expecting lower-court judges to "read their minds," said Steve Vladeck at One First. The court "doesn't have to provide full-throated explanations" of its rulings. But it leaves lower courts vulnerable at a time Trump and his allies direct "heated rhetoric" at any judge who makes a ruling "even slightly adverse to the federal government."
What next?
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last week acknowledged that the high court's reasoning "isn't always so clear," said Politico. The process of reaching consensus on the nine-member court "can lead to a lack of clarity in the law and can lead to some confusion, at times," Kavanaugh said at a judicial conference. "We are always trying to do better."
One problem is that shadow docket rulings "become binding precedent," Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, said at ABA Journal. There will always be a need for the court to issue emergency rulings. But those cases should not serve as a guide to the lower courts. Shadow docket cases "should be fully heard before becoming binding precedent."
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Joel Mathis is a writer with 30 years of newspaper and online journalism experience. His work also regularly appears in National Geographic and The Kansas City Star. His awards include best online commentary at the Online News Association and (twice) at the City and Regional Magazine Association.
-
Is this the end of ultraprocessed foods?
Today's Big Question California law, MAHA movement on the same track
-
Are inflatable costumes and naked bike rides helping or hurting ICE protests?
Talking Points Trump administration efforts to portray Portland and Chicago as dystopian war zones have been met with dancing frogs, bare butts and a growing movement to mock MAGA doomsaying
-
Gaza’s reconstruction: the steps to rebuilding
Even the initial rubble clearing in Gaza is likely to be fraught with difficulty and very slow
-
Do Republicans have a health care plan?
Today's Big Question The shutdown hinges on the answer
-
Trump ties $20B Argentina bailout to Milei votes
speed read Trump will boost Argentina’s economy — if the country’s right-wing president wins upcoming elections
-
Supreme Court: Judging 20 years of Roberts
Feature Two decades after promising to “call balls and strikes,” Chief Justice John Roberts faces scrutiny for reshaping American democracy
-
Could Democrats lose the New Jersey governor’s race?
Today’s Big Question Democrat Mikie Sherrill stumbles against Republican Jack Ciattarelli
-
Trump’s deportations are changing how we think about food
IN THE SPOTLIGHT The Department of Labor’s admission that immigration raids have affected America’s food supplies reopens a longstanding debate
-
Trump DOJ indicts New York AG Letitia James
Speed Read New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted as Trump’s Justice Department pursues charges against his political opponents
-
Could air traffic controllers help end the government shutdown?
Today’s Big Question The controllers were crucial in ending the last shutdown in 2019
-
Can Trump bully Netanyahu into Gaza peace?
Today's Big Question The Israeli leader was ‘strong-armed’ into new peace deal