Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan asked Chief Justice John Roberts to enforce judicial ethics after anonymous lower-court judges publicly criticized the Supreme Court; the move speaks to a wider clash over the role of judges, separation of powers, and whether unelected jurists are overstepping their bounds.
Grassley and Jordan wrote a rare joint letter pressing the chief justice to examine anonymous comments by sitting federal judges who told reporters the Supreme Court had been mishandling its emergency docket. The letter warns those attacks “damage the public’s faith and confidence in our judicial system,” and argues anonymous public commentary by judges can erode institutional legitimacy. From a conservative standpoint, the request is overdue; accountability matters when judges act like policymakers instead of referees.
According to the reporting, The Times contacted more than 400 of the almost 1,500 federal judges and asked them to respond to a questionnaire about the use of the emergency docket by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Times specifically included all the judges from “districts that have handled at least one legal challenge in a major piece of Mr. Trump’s agenda.” Of the 400 judges contacted by The Times, sixty-five judges responded to the survey, and forty-seven of the responses indicated that the “Supreme Court had been mishandling its emergency docket since Mr. Trump returned to office.” The Times further reported:
In interviews, federal judges called the Supreme Court’s emergency orders “mystical,” “overly blunt,” “incredibly demoralizing and troubling” and “a slap in the face to the district courts.” One judge compared their district’s current relationship with the Supreme Court to “a war zone.” Another said the courts were in the midst of a “judicial crisis.” The Times explained that “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.” The Times went on to characterize these responses and interviews as “overwhelmingly critical of the Supreme Court” and reflective of “extraordinary tensions within the judiciary.”
The Republican view here is simple: judges owe the public impartiality and restraint, not anonymous strikes against an institutional check. The emergency docket exists to prevent years of harm from lower-court stays and to keep the rule of law functioning across administrations. When district judges publicly undermine that mechanism, they risk turning neutral dispute resolution into perpetual litigation theater driven by ideology.
The dispute is not just about tone or etiquette. Conservative critics point to concrete examples where lower courts have prolonged policy fights that Congress and the elected branches tried to resolve. The Muslim travel ban litigation during the prior administration dragged on for well over a year, illustrating how drawn-out judicial processes can stymie executive action and frustrate democratic accountability.
Some retired jurists and commentators have ratcheted up the rhetoric, and that’s part of the problem. One former appeals court judge has described the situation in stark terms on a podcast, claiming the judiciary is reacting to a perceived executive overreach while urging defense of constitutional norms. That commentary, often amplified in left-leaning outlets, mirrors the anonymous complaints and fuels the impression of a coordinated judicial posture against an administration they disfavor.
“The Chief Justice… is presiding over the end of the rule of law in America”. That quote did not come from host Dahlia Lithwick, but this week’s guest, former Federal Circuit Court Judge and George H. W. Bush appointee, J Michael Luttig. On this week’s show, Judge Luttig explains the unprecedented split we’re seeing between the federal courts and the highest court in the land in response to Trump’s lawlessness on everything from tariffs, to due process, to deploying the National Guard, and what it all means for the future of American democracy.
“They [the federal courts] have had it, and they will not tolerate this. It doesn’t matter anymore what the Supreme Court says, the lower courts are determined to support and defend the Constitution according to their oath, and that’s what they’re going to do.”
Beyond rhetoric, conservatives complain about judicial micromanagement that intrudes on executive prerogatives and statutory procedures. Examples cited include district judges issuing orders that shape on-the-ground enforcement tactics, attempt to dictate schedules for agency personnel, or second-guess determinations about emergency deployments. Such actions, critics say, blur the line between courts providing legal remedies and judges imposing policy choices better left to elected officials.
There are also complaints about jurisdictional overreach in specialized areas where Congress set distinct administrative or adjudicative paths. Critics point to instances where district courts bypassed administrative remedies, stepped into contract and grant disputes, or ignored immigration adjudicators, creating parallel processes that yield inconsistent and politically charged outcomes. That kind of forum-shopping and intervention sows unpredictability and undermines coherent governance.
Federal judges have, at times, been accused of substituting their own view of an emergency for that of the president and Cabinet officials empowered by statute to act. The result is a patchwork of injunctions and rulings that complicate national policymaking and can even obstruct funding or deployment decisions during crises. From a conservative perspective, that conduct calls for scrutiny under the Code of Conduct and a clear reassertion of judicial limits.
Grassley and Jordan asked Chief Justice Roberts to consider whether anonymous public commentary violated ethical obligations and whether district judges exploited their rulings for political ends. That request is about restoring institutional balance: judges must interpret law, not orchestrate political outcomes beneath the veil of anonymity. If the judiciary wants public trust, it must earn it by acting transparently and within the narrow role the Constitution assigns.
What happens next is procedural and internal to the federal courts, but the message from conservatives is plain: hold judges to their oath and stop letting courts become a substitute for the ballot box. The republic depends on clear lines of authority and a judiciary that practices restraint, not partisan theater.
Add comment