A group of anonymous federal judges recently overturned a lower court’s ruling while also voicing their criticism of President Trump’s administration, although they provided little in the way of explanation for their oversight. This was reported by NBC News on Thursday.
According to discussions with 12 federal judges, who were appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, there are noticeable patterns in decisions made by lower courts that the Supreme Court has subsequently overturned. In these instances, it seems that members of the Trump administration have aggressively criticized lower court judges before their rulings are reversed.
Interestingly, ten out of these twelve judges believe that the Supreme Court should offer more context when overturning such decisions. One judge explicitly stated, “That’s not allowed. They don’t have our backs.”
The criticism extends to the legality of Trump’s tariffs, which have also faced legal challenges. The judges expressed that they have received death threats for issuing rulings that oppose Trump’s agenda, and several of Trump’s top officials have criticized those judges who they perceive as obstructive.
For instance, when Judge James Boasberg sought to halt a deportation flight to El Salvador, Trump took to social media, insisting that he should “perforate each.” There’s a notable example where various judges rejected Trump’s tariff policies back in March, which led White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to label the situation a “judicial coup.”
One judge elaborated that if the criticism from Trump and his officials keeps up, “someone would die” as a result. Another voiced that the lower courts feel betrayed, saying they were “thrown under the bus.” One judge described the situation as the Supreme Court suggesting it was a “judicial coup.”
While expressing some frustration, a judge appointed by Obama reflected that several judges have united in their anti-Trump rulings. “The whole ‘Trump Mad Syndrome’ is a real issue,” he said, explaining that judges sometimes lose sight of their roles amidst their anger over Trump’s actions.
Lastly, this same judge acknowledged that these feelings of distress among judges are, in some respects, justified. The Supreme Court’s Public Relations Office has not yet commented on these developments.
