Grassley and Jordan Demand John Roberts Enforce

In an unprecedented transfer, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan collectively signed a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts demanding he take motion to rein in district court and, maybe, appeals court judges who are anonymously slamming the Supreme Court. At issue is an October story in The New York Times headlined, Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders. You can read an analysis of the story right here: Federal Judges Blame Trump and SCOTUS for a Problem They Created; We Need to Fix It Now. This is how the letter from Grassley and Jordan characterizes the story.

According to the reporting, The Times contacted more than 400 of the virtually 1,500 federal judges and requested them to reply to a questionnaire about the use of the emergency docket by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Times particularly 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 additional 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 choose in contrast their district’s current relationship with the Supreme Court to “a war zone.” Another said the courts had been 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 letter rightly notes, “We are deeply concerned that these public attacks on the court from sitting federal judges damage the public’s faith and confidence in our judicial system. When judges call into question the legitimacy of their own branch of government, they erode faith in the institution itself.”

The letter is long overdue, but sadly misses the mark because it does not precisely describe the issue. 

Yes, we’re in the midst of a judicial disaster. But it is not the one the survey respondents whinged about. We are in a judicial disaster introduced on by judges who do not just like the president. They don’t love him utilizing his electoral mandate to reshape the Executive Branch in methods they oppose, either politically or philosophically, and they’re torqued because the Supreme Court is not going along with their stalling techniques. Without the SCOTUS emergency docket, decrease court selections might stay in impact for years before getting to the Supreme Court. 

For occasion, it took the Supreme Court 15 months to hear the “Muslim Travel Ban” case during Trump’s first time period; see The Trump Travel Ban Probably Survived the Supreme Court – RedState. It took them an extra two months to finally announce the choice. SCOTUS ruled in Trump’s favor, but a frivolous lawsuit had delayed his coverage by almost a 12 months and a half.

They aren’t even bothering to cover it anymore. The TDS-infected decrease court judges appear to be in a state of mutiny. J. Michael Luttig is a retired U.S. Appeals Court choose and fixture in GOP institution circles. After leaving the bench, he was a main gentle of the Never Trumpers, calling President Trump a clear and current hazard to American democracy.” He was also one of the fellows who made the hassle to disqualify Trump from working in 2024 under the 14th Amendment’s rebellion provisions appear vaguely severe instead of outright laughable. Here he’s on a podcast hosted by leftist legal analyst Dahlia Lithwick. This is how she promotes the episode.

“The Chief Justice… is presiding over the end of the rule of law in America”. That quote didn’t come from host Dahlia Lithwick, but this week’s visitor, former Federal Circuit Court Judge and George H. W. Bush appointee, J Michael Luttig. On this week’s show, Judge Luttig explains the unprecedented cut up we’re seeing between the federal courts and the very best court in the land in response to Trump’s lawlessness on all the pieces from tariffs, to due course of, to deploying the National Guard, and what it all means for the future of American democracy.

Luttig on Dahlia Lithwick’s podcast, where he is even more psychotic than in that Atlantic article: https://t.co/6ZPvFaFytu

— Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) November 1, 2025

“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.”

This is the hyperlink to the podcast.

The Atlantic article Mehta refers to is one in which Luttig claims Trump is planning to change into a real, no-sh** king. (If that means Trump goes to ship him off to a re-education camp in Montana, I might be satisfied to get behind the thought).

When taken in context with The New York Times article that prompted the Grassley-Jordan letter, I do not suppose he is participating in hyperbole. I believe he is acquainted with the considering of a lot of judges, and even hints that their rulings against Trump are coordinated.

Federal district courts have repeatedly meddled in areas where Congress has said it has no business. For occasion, Congress has set up a course of for workers to problem dismissals or disciplinary actions. That course of must run before the case will be heard in federal court. And yet, right here we’re. Likewise, contract and grant terminations have their own court system, but agenda-driven district court judges have consistently stepped into an space where they’ve no jurisdiction to meddle on behalf of favored entities. Most egregious have been the immigration instances where federal judges have illegally ignored immigration judges, their rulings, and the Court of Immigration Appeals.

Federal judges have no authority to direct how the federal government spends money during a shutdown.

Court watchers might surprise how Judge McConnell (once a major Democrat donor in Rhode Island) distinguished Trump v. CASA to justify common reduction. He addresses it in a footnote. In impact, if your ask is big enough then common reduction is important. Not sure that’s proper! pic.twitter.com/254NG1uugk

— Eric W. (@EWess92) November 1, 2025

Several judges have intervened to undermine President Trump’s Constitutional authority to deploy National Guardsmen to defend federal workers and property. Not only have they ignored the letter of the law, they’re claiming that their view of what constitutes an emergency state of affairs is superior to that of the president.

JUST IN: Judge Immergut renews her block on President Trump’s National Guard deployment to Portland, saying her three-day trial confirmed there was no credible evidence justify Trump/Hegseth’s incursion on Oregon’s sovereignty. https://t.co/XCKHVmKzP6 pic.twitter.com/4lvfTxJtTy

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 3, 2025

A federal choose tried to handle the daily work schedule of Gregory Bovino, a Chief Patrol Agent at U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to seem in court at 5:45 p.m. every weekday “to report on the use of force activities for each day.” See: seventh Circuit Puts the Kibosh on Judge’s Micromanagement of ICE Operations in Chicago. The same choose continues to specify the gear and techniques used by federal brokers in Chicago; see Judge orders federal brokers in Chicago to restrict use of pressure on peaceable protesters. No authority exists for this degree of micro-management. 

Another federal choose has ruled that it is not enough that White House press briefings have closed captioning out there online and in individual; they must have a signal language interpreter for that viewers, which understands signal language but is incapable of studying English.

A federal choose just ordered the White House to restore signal language interpreters at all briefings performed by Trump or Leavitt. https://t.co/8F3X8r2D2i

— POLITICO (@politico) November 5, 2025

If one reads Politico, one couldn’t be blamed for considering that our judicial system is a democracy where the quantity of judges ruling against one thing means it might’t be finished; see, for instance, More than 100 judges have ruled against the Trump admin’s necessary detention coverage.

What is occurring is clear. This is “massive resistance” on the order of Governor Orval Faubus blocking the schoolhouse door in Little Rock. These judges aren’t silly, but they’re probably corrupt and positively more in the custom of Roland Freisler than something arising in America.

As Grassley and Jordan notice, many of these actions appear to be bald-faced violations of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. “We urge you to think about the appropriateness of these public yet nameless feedback and whether or not they breach the moral obligations of all federal judges. While we don’t yet know the full extent of the feedback or who the judges are, we stay satisfied that judges shouldn’t be going to the press to undermine and denigrate the Supreme Court.” While they’re at it, they need to also look into a sample of district court judges leveraging their rulings to hurt the administration for political gain.

The Schumer Shutdown is right here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the novel Democrats pressured a authorities shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this. Help us continue to report the reality about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.