Federal judges criticize Supreme Court for unexplained emergency reversals favoring Trump administration

A group of federal judges said the U.S. Supreme Court has frequently overturned lower-court rulings with emergency orders that offer little to no explanation and often favor the Trump administration, according to an NBC News report.

Twelve active federal judges, appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents including former President Donald Trump, spoke to NBC on the condition of anonymity. Ten of the 12 argued the high court should provide more detailed reasoning when it issues emergency stays or reversals, saying the practice implies that lower-court judges performed poorly and damages public confidence in the judiciary. One judge told NBC, "It is inexcusable. They don't have our backs." That judge also said they had received death threats after issuing rulings that ran counter to Trump's agenda.

The judges cited a pattern in which prominent members of the Trump administration publicly criticized lower-court judges before the Supreme Court moved quickly to stay or reverse those decisions. Several judges expressed concern that one-line emergency orders, issued without explanation, create the appearance that the high court is intervening to protect the executive branch rather than adjudicating disputes on neutral legal grounds.

Emergency relief from the Supreme Court is an established part of its docket, used to preserve the status quo while the justices consider whether to hear a full appeal. But the judges interviewed by NBC said the recent frequency and brevity of such orders — particularly in cases involving the Trump administration — have strained collegial relations within the federal judiciary and complicated trial judges' ability to explain their decisions to the public.

Several of the anonymous judges described an environment in which trial judges face intense scrutiny and personal attacks after ruling against the administration, including public denunciations from senior officials. Those public attacks, the judges said, are sometimes followed by swift emergency orders from the high court that reverse or stay the lower court rulings with minimal explanation.

One judge told NBC that the lack of explanation in emergency orders conveys a message to trial judges that their work will not be defended from political pressure, and that the Supreme Court's terse interventions leave trial judges vulnerable to recrimination and, in some cases, threats. The interviews reflect a rare public airing of complaints from sitting trial judges about the high court's handling of emergency matters.

The judges emphasized that their concerns crossed ideological lines: the group included jurists appointed by both parties and by the Trump administration itself. They said the issue is not partisan loyalty but institutional integrity and the consistent application of judicial norms. Ten of the 12 called for the Supreme Court to provide fuller explanations when it intervenes in emergency matters, arguing that transparency would bolster the lower courts and public trust.

The NBC report is the latest public scrutiny of the Supreme Court's emergency procedures. Critics have long argued that one-line orders can obscure the court's reasoning and create confusion about legal standards pending full review. Supporters of the practice say quick, succinct orders are sometimes necessary to resolve urgent legal questions and to maintain the court's ability to act decisively.

The judges' comments come amid a broader atmosphere in which elected officials, including former President Trump and some of his top aides, have publicly criticized judges and judicial rulings. The judges who spoke to NBC said that public attacks followed by unexplained high-court reversals exacerbate tensions and risk undermining confidence in the impartiality of the federal judiciary.

The Supreme Court did not immediately provide public comment to NBC News, and the justices typically issue emergency orders without extended explanation. The judges interviewed said their choice to speak anonymously reflected concern about professional repercussions and the intensity of public and political scrutiny surrounding high-profile cases.

The judges asked for greater transparency from the Supreme Court in emergency interventions so that lower-court judges and the public can better understand the legal reasoning behind sudden reversals or stays, and so the judiciary as a whole can preserve its independence and public legitimacy.