Overview

• In rare anonymous interviews reported by NBC News, 12 sitting federal judges criticized the Supreme Court’s pattern of short emergency rulings that overturn their decisions in Trump administration cases, noting the administration sought such relief 23 times and won 17.
• Ten of the judges urged fuller written explanations, arguing that brief orders can make their work appear biased or poorly reasoned and provide little direction when cases return to their courts.
• Several judges described escalating threats and harassment after rulings against the administration, with one warning that without changes “somebody is going to die.”
• Justice Elena Kagan has acknowledged that the court should better explain emergency-docket decisions, calling it a responsibility as such cases have increased.
• Recent fallout includes Justice Neil Gorsuch cautioning that lower courts may not “defy” the high court’s emergency orders in an NIH grants case, a Massachusetts judge criticizing that rebuke in a Harvard funding dispute, and another judge apologizing for misreading the binding effect of such orders.