Federal judges are intensifying their criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court, accusing the justices of shielding President Donald Trump’s agenda while weakening the authority of lower courts.
NBC News reported that a dozen judges, who spoke anonymously, expressed frustration with what they described as the high court’s growing reliance on emergency rulings to overturn their decisions.
Ten of the judges went as far as to say the justices were acting “inexcusably” by siding with Trump without offering clear reasoning in certain cases.
One judge, who claimed to have received death threats, warned that “somebody is going to die” if political and judicial tensions continue to escalate.
The judges told NBC that the Supreme Court had handed Trump 17 victories, five of them without detailed explanations.
Critics said this practice sends the message that district judges are doing “poor work” and undermines confidence in the judiciary.
Trump and his top aides have often attacked judges who ruled against him. After Judge James Boasberg blocked a deportation effort, Trump called for his impeachment.
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller also accused lower courts of staging a “judicial coup” against the administration.
Some judges have singled out Chief Justice John Roberts, faulting him for failing to defend the judiciary from public criticism.
Others avoided direct blame but said the high court had left them “operating in a vacuum” by refusing to clarify its decisions.
The complaints extended to major cases in which the justices approved Trump’s authority to fire officials at the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, as well as restructure parts of the Department of Education.
Those rulings rolled back lower court attempts to limit presidential power over the executive branch.
Not all judges were aligned in their criticism. One Obama appointee acknowledged that some colleagues had been “out of line” when blocking Trump’s policies.
That judge warned that “Trump derangement syndrome” sometimes clouded judgment and urged peers to “stay in their lane,” Fox News reports.
This feud has surfaced in other high-profile rulings. Earlier this summer, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, an Obama appointee, rebuked Justice Neil Gorsuch in a footnote to a Harvard case.
Gorsuch had suggested lower courts were “defying” precedent, but Burroughs countered that the justices themselves had issued confusing emergency rulings that left judges without firm guidance, The Gateway Pundit notes.
The Supreme Court has also moved to restrict lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions.
That became central when the administration challenged rulings blocking its effort to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.
The justices sided with Trump, ruling that lower courts had overstepped their authority.
Republicans argue the uproar shows activist judges are undermining an elected president.
Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ) said the resistance from the bench proves “activist judges are so out of control that they don’t even respect the Supreme Court” and called for stronger accountability measures, including possible impeachment.
The clash highlights a broader struggle between Trump’s administration, determined to reform federal agencies and undo progressive policies, and a bloc of judges intent on blocking those changes.
The Supreme Court has often broken in Trump’s favor, fueling intensifying anger within the judiciary.
