If Anyone’s Causing A ‘Judicial Crisis,’ It’s Rogue Lower Court Judges

The Federalist ^ | October 13, 2025 | Shawn Fleetwood

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The real crisis is rogue lower court judges who have no respect for separation of powers or the constitutional role of the judicial branch.

Since returning to office, President Trump has faced an onslaught of leftist-backed lawfare seeking to grind the implementation of his voters’ agenda to a halt. Unsurprisingly, many of these lawsuits have been filed in districts predominated by Democrat-appointed judges, who have been more than happy to issue a myriad of preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders blocking enforcement of the administration’s policies.

Now, with the U.S. Supreme Court largely agreeing to shut down this lower court judicial coup for the time being, a number of rogue judges have taken to anonymously attacking the high court for stopping the crisis they helped create.

The latest instance of this phenomenon came on Saturday, when The New York Times published an article highlighting criticisms from more than three-dozen unnamed lower court judges about the Supreme Court’s handling of cases involving the Trump administration. More specifically, these (mostly Democrat-appointed) jurists attacked the high court for its management of the “emergency” docket.

Otherwise known as the “interim” docket, this is where, for example, a district court judge issues a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order against a party (ex. the Trump administration) barring a specific policy from taking effect. If the affected party’s appeal to temporarily stay (“pause”) that injunction/TRO is rejected by the appeals court, the party can then file an emergency application for stay at SCOTUS’ emergency docket. The court can then grant or reject the request based on factors such as the party’s likelihood to succeed on the merits and suffer irreparable harm if the lower court injunction/TRO is allowed to remain in place throughout litigation.

Thus far, the Supreme Court has granted...

[Midwesterner53]

He got a ruling from the Supreme Court limiting their jurisdiction and yet he lets them still tie his hands. Big talk not backed by big action is very damaging. Ignore their rulings because he has the Supreme Court on his side so far.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

He got a ruling from the Supreme Court limiting their jurisdiction and yet he lets them still tie his hands. Big talk not backed by big action is very damaging. Ignore their rulings because he has the Supreme Court on his side so far.

If only we had you for President. You'd know what to do.

[Carry_Okie]

One way to end this is to place Federal Judges at risk of losing their jobs upon three overturns as subject to Senate re-confirmation as a matter of Article III “good behavior.”

[T. Rustin Noone]

PDJT is doing the right thing.

Where he to defy the Courts, ANY Court, he could be targeted
by the Left for an impeachable crime. I don't think Trump cares
about the impeachment part. He cares about how it would
derail his ability to reshape the relationship between the
People and the Federal government. And, it would unnecessarily
give fuel to his critics.

[Albion Wilde]

ROGUE JUDGES, Part 4:
Swipe, save, and share:

r

More memes about ROGUE JUDGES:
Part 3, click here.

Part 2, click here.

Part 1, click here.

[Dr. Franklin]

One way to end this is to place Federal Judges at risk of losing their jobs upon three overturns as subject to Senate re-confirmation as a matter of Article III “good behavior.”

That won't happen. I have advocated here for Congress to create a national court of judicial discipline comprised of judges who don't sit on other courts. That court would adjudge what isn't good behavior in office. In Great Britain prior to the American Revolution, impeachment was just one way to remove a judge from office.

[Carry_Okie]

That won't happen.

All it would take is a very simple statute. The States would he the judges of Federal courts, as the Founders intended in giving the Senate the power to confirm or deny the appointee.

[Robwin]

I should think “rogue” is an inappropriate description. In reality they are leftist ideologues doing what they can to frustrate and delay Trump’s needed reforms.

[Dr. Franklin]

All it would take is a very simple statute. The States would he the judges of Federal courts, as the Founders intended in giving the Senate the power to confirm or deny the appointee.

The founders wrote as little as possible about the federal judiciary. It rightfully frightened the Anti-Federalists, whose concerns have proved prophetic. The Senate tries impeachments, but can't act alone to remove a judge. According to the Act of Settlement of 1701 the king could remove a judge from office if and both Houses of Parliament wished him removed though an address of the matter to the crown. In the U.S., the writ of scire facias has never been used to remove a federal judge, although precedent from Britain permitted that. The most likely method of removing a judge, is from the judiciary itself, which constitutionally adjudges misconduct on bench. "Who judges the judges?", is the crucial question.

[Carry_Okie]

The Senate tries impeachments, but can't act alone to remove a judge.

That's not what I suggested. Congress has the power to manage the Federal courts. The statute would define what constitutes failure to uphold Good Behavior per Article II. The removal would be automatic per the Statute.

According to the Act of Settlement of 1701 the king could remove a judge from office if and both Houses of Parliament wished him removed though an address of the matter to the crown.

Not pertinent.

The most likely method of removing a judge, is from the judiciary itself, which constitutionally adjudges misconduct on bench. "Who judges the judges?", is the crucial question.

That is effectively what happens if the relevant Appeals Court rejects too many opinions. I'm suggesting three.

[FLT-bird]

Yep. The Judicial Insurrection has been led by Obama and especially Biden appointees on the district courts. A huge number of these people are foreigners. It shows they have no respect for the US constitution. If Congressional Republicans had any balls they would impeach at least a few of them.

[Dr. Franklin]

That's not what I suggested. Congress has the power to manage the Federal courts. The statute would define what constitutes failure to uphold Good Behavior per Article II. The removal would be automatic per the Statute.

Defining what constitutes good behavior in office is one thing, but the courts will hold that only they can judge another judge for misconduct in office, and they are loathe to find any misconduct.

Not pertinent.

It's absolutely pertinent. If two branches of government, the legislature and the executive, determine that a judge is guilty of misconduct, then they remove him from office. POTUS would then remove him from the courthouse, refuse to enforce any further rulings, and refuse to pay him a salary. That's checks and balances, but if only the judiciary can determine misconduct short of a 2/3's vote for removal in the U.S. Senate, then there isn't a practical check on the judiciary, and that's where we find ourselves today.

That is effectively what happens if the relevant Appeals Court rejects too many opinions. I'm suggesting three.

Your solution will be found unconstitutional by SCOTUS for violating separation of powers. It won't happen. Only judges can judges short of impeachment, which never happens short of serious criminal charges against a judge.

[Carry_Okie]

It's absolutely pertinent.

Nonsense. The English precedent you cited operated under the exact opposite of the Separation of Powers Principle.

[Dr. Franklin]

Nonsense. The English precedent you cited operated under the exact opposite of the Separation of Powers Principle.

You are simply ignorant of the history and meaning of judges serving under "good behavior" in office. Before the Settlement Act of 1701, judges in Britain only served during the life of the monarch who had appointed them. (They also could be removed by writ of scire facias or criminal information.) Their commissions expired, or could be revoked, on that monarch's death. The Settlement Act of 1701 changed that, but was selectively ignored by three British monarchs until George III honored it upon ascending to the throne. The solution according to that law was that judges could be removed by the monarch if both Houses of Parliament requested a removal. Thus, if two branches of government wanted a judge removed, he could be removed. That is checks and balances at work. At present in the U.S., the checks don't balance the conduct of the judiciary.

[Dr. Franklin]

*They also could be removed by writ of scire facias or criminal information, or impeachment.