On September 4, 2025, a rare chorus of discontent echoed from the federal bench, as a dozen judges appointed by presidents from both parties—including Donald Trump himself—voiced deep frustration with the U.S. Supreme Court’s handling of cases involving the Trump administration. Their criticisms, delivered anonymously out of fear of retaliation, shine a spotlight on a judiciary in turmoil, with growing concerns about the Supreme Court’s emergency decisions, the safety of judges, and the very integrity of America’s legal system.
According to NBC News, these twelve judges, spread across the nation and representing a spectrum of political backgrounds, are increasingly alarmed by a pattern they say has emerged in the last year: lower court rulings against the Trump administration are being swiftly overturned by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority—often through so-called “emergency” or “shadow docket” decisions that come with little or no explanation. The judges argue this practice leaves them “thrown under the bus,” as one put it, and validates the president’s public attacks on the judiciary.
“It is inexcusable,” one judge told NBC News. “They don’t have our backs.” Another warned that if the climate of criticism and threats continues unchecked, “somebody is going to die.” These are not idle fears. The U.S. Marshals Service reported more than 400 threat investigations as of June 2025, a dramatic rise from just 224 in 2021, reflecting the increasingly perilous environment for judges who issue rulings that run afoul of the White House.
President Trump and his allies have not been shy about expressing their displeasure with the courts. After Judge James Boasberg blocked deportation flights to El Salvador, Trump publicly called for his impeachment. When several judges ruled against the administration’s tariff agenda in March, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller derided the judiciary’s actions as a “judicial coup.” Such rhetoric, judges say, only amplifies the risks they face, both professionally and personally.
“Certainly, there is a strong sense in the judiciary among the judges ruling on these cases that the court is leaving them out to dry,” a judge appointed by President Barack Obama admitted to NBC News. “They are partially right to feel the way they feel.” Yet, this same judge acknowledged that some lower court decisions may have been influenced by what he called “Trump derangement syndrome,” suggesting that frustration with the administration’s approach sometimes causes judges to “forget to stay in their lane.”
The heart of the controversy lies in the Supreme Court’s increasing reliance on the “shadow docket”—a fast-track process for emergency cases that bypasses the court’s usual months-long deliberation. As NBC News and Axios report, the Trump administration has leaned heavily on this mechanism during its second term, filing 23 emergency requests since January. The Supreme Court has granted 17 of these, often with minimal or no reasoning provided. By comparison, the Biden administration filed 19 such requests during its four-year term, with 10 granted.
This lack of explanation leaves lower court judges in a bind. “Judges in the trenches need, and deserve, well-reasoned, bright-line guidance,” one judge said. “Too often today, sweeping rulings arrive with breathtaking speed but minimal explanation, stripped of the rigor that full briefing and argument provide.”
The frustration isn’t limited to the lower courts. Even within the Supreme Court, the issue has sparked debate. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissenting opinion in August 2025, accused the majority of engaging in “Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist,” referencing the chaotic, rule-free game from the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes. “Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules,” she wrote. “We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.” U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs echoed the sentiment in a ruling against the administration’s freeze on $3 billion in federal grants to Harvard, stating, “This is not Calvinball and there are rules.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, meanwhile, has attempted to defend the judiciary’s independence, though some judges say his efforts have fallen short. In his 2024 year-end summary, Roberts wrote, “Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed.” He has also rebuked those who accuse judges of political bias, insisting that the courts are not divided into “Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.” Despite these statements, four judges told NBC News they wish Roberts would do more, both publicly and behind the scenes, to defend lower courts from attacks and to insist on more transparent Supreme Court practices.
The stakes are not merely academic. Judges report facing bomb threats, “swattings,” and harassment, with their families sometimes targeted as well. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, who blocked Trump’s executive order to restrict birthright citizenship, recounted to NBC News an incident in February when law enforcement arrived at his home with weapons drawn after a fake call alleged he had murdered his wife. “It’s just been stunning to me how much damage has been done to the reputation of our judiciary because some political actors think that they can gain some advantage by attacking the independence of the judiciary and threatening the rule of law,” Coughenour said.
Not all Supreme Court justices agree on the need for more explanation in emergency rulings. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a recent concurring opinion, criticized lower court judges for failing to follow Supreme Court orders, writing, “Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh, speaking at a legal conference, suggested that keeping emergency decisions brief helps avoid prejudging cases that might return to the court through the normal appeals process.
Meanwhile, public confidence in the Supreme Court has plummeted. A Pew Research report released on September 3, 2025, found favorable views of the court at near historic lows, a trend legal experts attribute at least in part to the opacity and frequency of its emergency decisions.
As the judiciary grapples with these challenges, calls for reform and for greater transparency from the Supreme Court are growing louder. The anonymous judges who spoke out this week reflect a system under extraordinary strain, torn between the need to uphold the rule of law and the pressures of an increasingly polarized political landscape. Whether the Supreme Court will heed these warnings and adapt its practices remains to be seen, but the stakes—for the judiciary, for the rule of law, and for American democracy—could hardly be higher.
