Conservative judges turning against Trump — thanks to the Supreme Court: experts

13h

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito attends an event organized by the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See, in Rome, Italy, September 20, 2025. REUTERS/Vincenzo Livieri

A recent unanimous ruling against one of President Donald Trump's key policies suggests that the Supreme Court may have overplayed its hand, making rebels out of conservative lower court judges.

That's according to Slate legal correspondents Mark Joseph Stern and Dahlia Lithwick, who argued on Monday that last week's 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling preventing Trump from deploying the National Guard in Illinois may have been rooted in animus against how the nation's highest court has treated lower courts. That 7th Circuit ruling upheld a previous ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in which the Trump administration's assertion that calling the guard was necessary to quell a "rebellion" in Chicago failed to convince the court to let him move forward with the deployment. The 3-0 panel even included Trump appointee Amy St. Eve.

Lithwick and Stern observed that the district court stage of litigation is typically seen as the "fact-finding" part of a legal case. And appellate court judges in those respective circuits are usually bound to accept the facts of the district courts unless they were proven to be erroneous.

The experts then pivoted to the Supreme Court's habit during Trump's second term of overturning lower court rulings, often in emergency docket or "shadow docket" rulings that contain no rationale or explanation for their decisions.

"I’m wondering if it was an unforced error by the U.S. Supreme Court to treat lower courts — their findings of fact, their efforts to do hard doctrinal work under unbelievably challenging circumstances — with hostility or overt contempt," Lithwick said. "I find myself wondering if the court, particularly over the summer, made a lot of enemies by using dismissive rhetoric, and now in a lot of ways emboldening judges to say: Not today, Satan. Don’t lie to me."

Stern agreed, saying: "[W]e are starting to see some conservative judges on the lower courts bristle at the way that the Supreme Court is treating them and their colleagues."

"It seems to me that the Supreme Court has fomented an 'us vs. them' dynamic with the lower courts. It’s presenting itself as the final arbiter of all facts on the ground, ignoring its obligation to defer to what the district court believes is happening in the real world," Stern said. "The Supreme Court has decided: We know everything, we have a crystal ball, we are omnipresent and omnipotent. That arrogance doesn’t just offend the lower courts’ egos — it undercuts the work they see as their duty, especially the careful establishment of facts. So when the Supreme Court treats fact-finding as optional, maybe judges like St. Eve respond by making it decisive. They’re not just fact-checking, they’re reality-checking."

Click here to read Lithwick and Stern's full analysis in Slate (subscription required).

From Your Site Articles