Anonymous federal judges are sounding alarms over the U.S. Supreme Court’s habit of swiftly overturning their rulings to favor President Trump’s policies. Their gripes, aired in an NBC News report on September 4, 2025, reveal a judiciary frustrated by what they see as a dismissive higher court. Yet, one wonders if their complaints mask a deeper resistance to Trump’s agenda.
A dozen federal judges, appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, voiced concerns about the Supreme Court’s emergency rulings. These rulings, often lacking detailed explanations, reverse lower court decisions that clash with the administration’s goals. The judges’ anonymity suggests fear of backlash, but it also raises questions about their willingness to stand by their rulings publicly.
The trend of overturned decisions has sparked tension, particularly when the Supreme Court issues rapid, sparsely justified orders. Ten of the 12 judges interviewed argued that the higher court should provide clearer reasoning for these reversals. Without it, they claim, their work is unfairly branded as subpar, leaving them exposed to public scorn.
“It is inexcusable,” one judge fumed about the Supreme Court’s approach. The same judge warned that “somebody is going to die” if Trump’s top officials keep publicly slamming lower court judges. Such hyperbole seems designed to inflame rather than inform, especially when the judge hides behind anonymity.
Public criticism from Trump and his allies, like White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, has intensified the judges’ unease. Miller called judicial blocks on Trump’s tariff agenda a “judicial coup” in March 2025. While the phrase stings, it reflects a broader conservative frustration with courts perceived as overreaching into policy matters.
In March 2025, several judges issued rulings that halted Trump’s tariff plans, deeming them illegal under federal law. A federal appeals court similarly struck down these tariffs, citing violations of legal standards. These decisions, while legally grounded, fueled accusations from Trump’s camp that judges were obstructing the administration’s economic priorities.
“Thrown under the bus,” another judge lamented, describing how the Supreme Court’s quick reversals leave lower courts looking incompetent. The sentiment is understandable, but it ignores the Supreme Court’s role in setting legal precedents, not coddling lower judges’ egos. If the rulings were sound, shouldn’t they withstand scrutiny without such complaints?
One judge reported receiving death threats after rulings that opposed Trump’s agenda, a chilling reminder of the stakes in high-profile cases. While no one should face such intimidation, the judge’s anonymity makes it hard to verify the claim or assess its context. Public discourse shouldn’t descend into threats, but neither should it silence robust debate.
Judge James Boasberg, for instance, sought to block Trump’s deportation flights to El Salvador, prompting the president to label him “IMPEACHED” on social media. Trump’s fiery rhetoric may rally his base, but it risks further eroding trust in the judiciary. Still, Boasberg’s ruling invites scrutiny when it appears to overstep into executive policy.
“It’s almost like the Supreme Court is saying it is a ‘judicial coup,’” a third judge told NBC News, echoing Miller’s phrase. The comment suggests the Supreme Court is complicit in Trump’s narrative, but it overlooks the court’s duty to resolve legal disputes, not appease lower judges. Such accusations feel more like wounded pride than substantive critique.
A fourth judge, appointed by President Obama, claimed that “Trump derangement syndrome” drives some judicial rulings against the administration. This judge admitted that colleagues sometimes “forget to stay in their lane,” a candid acknowledgment of judicial overreach. Yet, the same judge sympathized with peers who feel abandoned by the Supreme Court, revealing a conflicted judiciary.
“Certainly, there is a strong sense in the judiciary among the judges ruling on these cases that the court is leaving them out to dry,” the Obama-appointed judge added. The grievance is clear, but it sidesteps whether the overturned rulings were legally sound in the first place. If the Supreme Court sees errors, isn’t it their job to correct them?
The Supreme Court’s public information office didn’t respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment, leaving the justices’ rationale unclear. This silence only fuels the judges’ narrative of being unsupported. But perhaps the court trusts its rulings speak for themselves, even if lower judges disagree.
The clash between lower courts and the Supreme Court underscores a deeper divide over judicial roles in a polarized era. Trump’s aggressive push for policies like tariffs and deportations has put judges in the crosshairs, especially when their rulings are reversed. Conservatives might argue this reflects a necessary correction of activist judges, while others see it as undermining judicial independence.
Ultimately, the anonymous judges’ complaints highlight a judiciary grappling with its place in a contentious political landscape. Their call for more transparency from the Supreme Court is reasonable, but their anonymity and dire warnings risk sounding like self-preservation over principle. As Trump’s agenda presses forward, expect more sparks between the courts—and more scrutiny of who’s really staying in their lane.
