More than three dozen federal #judges have told NYT that #SCOTUS’ flurry of brief, opaque emergency orders in cases related to the #Trump admin have left them confused about how to proceed in those matters & are hurting the #judiciary’s image with the public.

At issue are the quick-turn orders SCOTUS has issued dictating whether #Trump admin policies should be left in place while they are litigated through the lower courts.

#law #CorruptCourt #ActivistCourt #LegalEthics

That emergency docket [aka #ShadowDocket], a growing part of #SCOTUS’ work in recent years, has taken on greater importance amid the flood of litigation challenging #Trump’s efforts to *expand* [consolidate] #ExecutivePower.

While the orders are technically temporary, they have had broad practical effects, allowing the admin to #deport tens of thousands of people, discharge #transgender #military service members, fire thousands of #FederalWorkers & slash federal #funding.

#law #judiciary

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

65 #federal #judges responded to a NYT questionnaire sent to hundreds of federal judges across the country. Of those, 47 said #SCOTUS had been *mishandling* [abusing] its emergency docket since #Trump returned to office.

#law #CorruptCourt #ActivistCourt #LegalEthics #judiciary

The #judges responded to the questionnaire & spoke in interviews on the condition of anonymity…, 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 #Trump; 37 were nominated by Democrats. While those nominated by Democrats were more critical of #SCOTUS, judges nominated by presidents of both parties expressed concerns.

#law #judiciary

#Federal #judges called #SCOTUS’ emergency orders “mystical,” “overly blunt,” “incredibly demoralizing & troubling” & “a slap in the face to the district courts.” One judge compared their district’s current relationship with SCOTUS to “a war zone.” Another said the courts were in the midst of a “#JudicialCrisis.”

The responses to NYT serve as the most comprehensive picture to date about the extraordinary tensions within the #judiciary, hints of which have begun to spill out publicly.

#law

At a hearing in Sept, Judge James A. Wynn Jr. of the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said his court was “out here flailing” as it tried to apply vague emergency rulings from #SCOTUS that left #judges “in limbo.” Ruling on a different case, Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts noted that the emergency orders “have not been models of clarity.”

#law #CorruptCourt #ActivistCourt #LegalEthics #judiciary #Trump

#SCOTUS has so far issued emergency orders in about 20 cases involving the #Trump admin’s policies. In at least 7 of those orders, the majority offered no reasoning for its decision.

At public events, some SCOTUS justices have defended their use of the emergency docket as a legitimate response to the increase in swift presidential policy-making by #ExecutiveOrder, as opposed to [the proper way of] #legislation passed through #Congress.

#law #CorruptCourt #ActivistCourt #LegalEthics #judiciary

Offering extensive *reasoning* or *explanation* [judicial opinions], they argued, would risk locking the court into a position that might not turn out to be its final view.

The NYT reached out to >400 judges, including every judge in districts that have handled at least one legal challenge to a major piece of #Trump’s agenda.

#law #SCOTUS #CorruptCourt #ActivistCourt #LegalEthics #judiciary