Federal judges call SCOTUS’s shadow docket “inappropriate,” “opaque,” and a “judicial crisis” – Daily Kos

by TheCriticalMind

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday, October 11, 2025 at 4:45:27p PDT

The current Supreme Court is making unprecedented use of the ‘shadow docket’. Reaction has been mixed. Liberals say the Court is a rubber stamp enabling Trump’s imperial presidency. MAGAs argue that SCOTUS’s conservative bloc is doing God’s work by thwarting anti-democratic rulings by unelected, activist, lower court judges.

However, politics aside, Supreme Court rulings impact how the Judiciary does business. To understand the practical effect of the Court’s use of the shadow docket, the New York Times polled US District and Appeals Court judges.

It reported its findings in an article titled: Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders.”

The subhead summarized the substance of the piece. To wit:

Dozens of sitting judges shared with The Times their concerns about risks to the courts’ legitimacy as the Supreme Court releases opaque orders about Trump administration policies.

The Times wrote to “hundreds of federal judges across the country” — and 65 replied. The respondents are not named. But the paper said presidents of both parties had appointed them. And that, while there was a difference in degree, Judges across the political spectrum worried about SCOTUS’s high-handedness. In the NYT’s words:  

Of the judges who responded, 28 were nominated by Republican presidents, including 10 by Mr. Trump; 37 were nominated by Democrats.

Adding: While those nominated by Democrats were more critical of the Supreme Court, judges nominated by presidents of both parties expressed concerns.

The paper asked the judges if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: The Supreme Court has made appropriate use of the emergency docket since President Trump returned to office. Overall 72% said SCOTUS’s use was inappropriate, 9% hedged, and 18% (all Republican) said it was appropriate.

Tellingly, while almost all Democrats said SCOTUS was on the wrong side of the line, nearly half the Republicans concurred. The conclusion is inescapable. When half your team thinks your side stinks, it stinks.  

 Federal judges call SCOTUS’s shadow docket “inappropriate,” “opaque,” and a “judicial crisis”

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Federal judges call SCOTUS’s shadow docket “inappropriate,” “opaque,” and a “judicial crisis”

#2025 #America #DailyKos #DonaldTrump #Education #EmergencyOrders #FederalJudiciary #Health #History #JudicialCrisis #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #RuleOfLaw #SCOTUS #SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStates #TheNewYorkTimes #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders – The New York Times

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders

Dozens of sitting judges shared with The Times their concerns about risks to the courts’ legitimacy as the Supreme Court releases opaque orders about Trump administration policies.

Listen to this article · 11:18 min Learn more

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders – The New York Times

By Mattathias Schwartz and Zach Montague

Mattathias Schwartz and Zach Montague cover the federal courts.

Oct. 11, 2025

Sign up for the Tilt newsletter, for Times subscribers only.  Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, makes sense of the latest political data. Try it for 4 weeks.

More than three dozen federal judges have told The New York Times that the Supreme Court’s flurry of brief, opaque emergency orders in cases related to the Trump administration have left them confused about how to proceed in those matters and are hurting the judiciary’s image with the public.

At issue are the quick-turn orders the Supreme Court has issued dictating whether Trump administration policies should be left in place while they are litigated through the lower courts. That emergency docket, a growing part of the Supreme Court’s work in recent years, has taken on greater importance amid the flood of litigation challenging President Trump’s efforts to expand executive power.

While the orders are technically temporary, they have had broad practical effects, allowing the administration to deport tens of thousands of people, discharge transgender military service members, fire thousands of government workers and slash federal spending.

The striking and highly unusual critique of the nation’s highest court from lower court judges reveals the degree to which litigation over Mr. Trump’s agenda has created strains in the federal judicial system.

Sixty-five judges responded to a Times questionnaire sent to hundreds of federal judges across the country. Of those, 47 said the Supreme Court had been mishandling its emergency docket since Mr. Trump returned to office.

The judges responded to the questionnaire and spoke in interviews on the condition of anonymity so they could share their views candidly, as lower court judges are governed by a complex set of rules that include limitations on their public statements.

Of the judges who responded, 28 were nominated by Republican presidents, including 10 by Mr. Trump; 37 were nominated by Democrats. While those nominated by Democrats were more critical of the Supreme Court, judges nominated by presidents of both parties expressed concerns.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders – The New York Times

#Democrats #EmergencyOrders #FederalJudges #FederalJudicialSystem #Judges #JudicialCrisis #Republicans #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStates #TheNewYorkTimes