Overview

• Of 65 federal judges who responded to the Times questionnaire, 47 said the Supreme Court has mishandled its emergency docket since President Trump returned to office, six were neutral, and 12—each appointed by Republican presidents—said its use was appropriate.
• In interviews, judges described recent emergency orders as “mystical,” “overly blunt,” and “a slap in the face to the district courts,” with 42 reporting “some” or “major” harm to public perception of the judiciary.
• Reporting cited the Court siding with Trump in 21 of 23 second‑term cases testing presidential power, including 14 decided through the emergency docket.
• A Reason analysis questioned the survey’s representativeness, noting it was not random and focused on districts hearing major challenges to Trump policies, and it flagged ethical constraints that may have influenced who responded.
• The new Supreme Court term features fast‑tracked disputes over presidential removal authority and tariff powers, set against last year’s 6–3 ruling granting presidents immunity for official acts.