Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh issued strong warnings this summer to lower court judges, cautioning them against defying the Supreme Court’s precedents—particularly in cases involving the Trump administration. “Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them,” Gorsuch wrote in a recent opinion involving the administration’s cancellation of nearly $800 million in federal research grants. Kavanaugh joined the opinion, which criticized a district court for ignoring a prior Supreme Court ruling.
Gorsuch emphasized that this was the third recent case where the Court had to intervene despite clear precedent. The justices overturned U.S. District Judge William Young’s ruling, which had blocked the grant cancellation and accused the government of racial discrimination. The Supreme Court’s decision allowed the freeze to remain in place.
Other conservative justices also expressed frustration with lower courts. Justice Samuel Alito denounced what he called “judicial hubris” in a separate Trump-era case. The Court has repeatedly ruled in favor of the administration on the emergency docket, addressing issues like immigration policy, federal spending, and control over executive agencies—even when the executive branch had not complied with lower court directives.
Liberal justices strongly dissented. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson likened the majority’s approach to “Calvinball jurisprudence,” where rules constantly change. Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the Court of “rewarding lawlessness,” warning that ignoring executive noncompliance sets a dangerous precedent.
Conservative legal figures defended Gorsuch’s stance. They argued that Supreme Court emergency orders, even when unsigned, must be respected by lower courts. In July, the Court limited the use of nationwide injunctions and affirmed Trump’s authority to remove Biden-appointed officials. Kavanaugh reminded judges that their duty is to uphold the Constitution—not act as policymakers.
