This summer, Supreme Court of the United States Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh issued pointed warnings to lower‐court judges, urging them not to ignore or deviate from the Court’s precedents—especially in cases tied to the Donald Trump administration. In a case involving the cancellation of around $800 million in federal research grants, Gorsuch wrote that “Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them.” The concurrence, joined by Kavanaugh, criticized a district court judge for failing to follow a prior Supreme Court order.
Gorsuch emphasized that this was the third instance in just a few weeks where the Court had to step in because a lower court had ruled in a way that he believed was “squarely controlled” by existing precedent. He reiterated that all Supreme Court decisions—including those from the “shadow docket” (emergency orders without full merits briefing)—carry binding weight. Meanwhile, Kavanaugh separately addressed a gathering of judges and acknowledged the complexities they face when interpreting Supreme Court rulings, noting that the Court sometimes issues terse orders but still expects compliance.
The reaction from the judiciary has been mixed. Some district judges expressed frustration at the Court’s reliance on minimally explained emergency orders and the perception of being admonished for legitimate interpretive judgments. At least one judge publicly apologized after being called out by name in the opinion. Meanwhile, liberal justices dissented more sharply, with Ketanji Brown Jackson calling the majority’s approach “Calvinball jurisprudence”—suggesting rules appear to change arbitrarily—and Sonia Sotomayor warning that rewarding executive noncompliance undermines the rule of law.
In short, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh’s message underscores a tension between the Supreme Court and lower federal courts: the high court insists on strict adherence to its precedents (including emergency rulings), while some lower courts and critics argue the lack of clarity and explanation in those rulings hampers meaningful judicial guidance. The dispute highlights broader concerns about transparency, the role of emergency orders, and the power dynamics within the federal judiciary.
