Most federal judges responding to survey express dissatisfaction with SCOTUS emergency docket decisions

"Only 12 out of 65 judges responding to the newspaper's survey said the U.S. Supreme Court has made appropriate use of its emergency docket, and only 12 said lower-court judges are getting sufficient guidance on how to apply emergency docket orders. And only two of 54 judges who answered the question said the emergency docket had improved the public's perception of the judiciary."

"Some judges were critical in interviews with the New York Times, calling the emergency docket orders "mystical," "overly blunt," "incredibly demoralizing" and "a slap in the face to the district courts." One viewed their district's relationship with the Supreme Court as a "war zone," and another thought that courts were in a "judicial crisis." The judges spoke on the condition of anonymity."

"Also defending the Supreme Court is Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia, who told the New York Times that the Supreme Court was reacting to a large number of emergency challenges related to the Trump presidency. But, he added, "You don't want too many snap judgments and emergency orders creating a public impression of either secretiveness or arbitrariness.""

Dozens of federal judges expressed concern about Supreme Court emergency-docket decisions tied to President Trump since his second term. Only 12 of 65 judges said the Court made appropriate use of the emergency docket, and only 12 said lower courts received sufficient guidance for applying those orders. Only two of 54 judges said the emergency docket improved public perception of the judiciary. Some judges described the orders as "mystical," "overly blunt," "incredibly demoralizing," and "a slap in the face to the district courts," and others described relationships as a "war zone" or a "judicial crisis." A Trump appointee defended the orders as "flushing out anti-democratic rulings," while a circuit judge cautioned against too many snap judgments that could create impressions of secretiveness or arbitrariness. The responses indicate strains in the federal judicial system amid extensive litigation over the Trump agenda.

Read at ABA Journal