Supreme Court Justices Reassert Authority as Lower Courts Test Limits

This summer, Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh delivered a pointed message to lower court judges: defying decisions made by the highest court is not an option. Their warning came amid a spate of recent rulings protecting emergency-contested authority exercised by the Trump administration.

“Precedents Must Be Followed”

In a new opinion, Justice Gorsuch emphasized that lower courts may disagree with Supreme Court rulings—but they are never free to outright disregard them. This rebuke came after a federal judge attempted to reinstate nearly $800 million in federal research grants that had been canceled. The district judge had called the administration’s action reminiscent of unprecedented racial discrimination, but Chief Justice Kavanaugh joined Gorsuch in reversing that opinion. The Supreme Court reinstated the freeze on the grants, pointing to prior Court decisions that dictated the case’s outcome. The justices made clear: their precedents carry binding weight across the judicial hierarchy.

“It’s the third time in weeks the Court has had to step in on a case clearly governed by one of its precedents,” Gorsuch wrote. “‘When this court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts.’”

Frustration Echoed

Other high court members have issued similar criticisms. Justice Samuel Alito had earlier flagged instances where he described lower-court rulings—particularly those countering Trump policies—as judicial overreach. Meanwhile, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in dissent to the NIH funding decision, likened the majority’s approach to rule-bending “Calvinball” — a chaotic children’s game where rules are made up on the fly, and the only rule is there are no rules. “Calvinball has only one rule: there are no fixed rules,” she wrote. “We seem to have two: that one, and this administration always wins.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another dissenting voice, criticized the Court’s willingness to let executive actions stand—even when lower courts found evidence that those actions had ignored legal processes. She lamented that “rewarding lawlessness” by refusing to enforce noncompliance was a dangerous precedent.

A Firm Reassertion of Power

Prominent conservative legal figures defended Gorsuch’s and Kavanaugh’s approach. James Burnham, a former Gorsuch clerk, described lower court pushback as “unprecedented, extraordinary,” and insisted the Supreme Court must respond accordingly. Carrie Severino from the Judicial Crisis Network argued that some judges had started to disregard emergency orders from the Supreme Court—something she said required public rebuke.

Much of the tension stems from emergency orders issued by the high court—often unsigned, terse, and issued without full explanations. While these rulings don’t settle the legal issues at hand, the Supreme Court has signaled that they must still guide how similar cases are handled in the short term.

Recent Reinforcements of Judicial Guidance

This summer, one emergency ruling backed a Trump decision to remove three Biden-appointed members from the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The justices concluded that the earlier labor agency precedent directly applied, curbing the lower courts’ ability to intervene.

Earlier in the year, the Court also succeeded in curbing district judges’ ability to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions—decisions that had blocked major policies under both Republican and Democratic leadership. This move came in a case challenging Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship.

In a call for improved clarity, Justice Elena Kagan remarked earlier this summer that the Court could do better explaining itself to help lower courts follow the right path. Justice Kavanaugh reinforced the idea that judges must remember their role: not to make policy, but to uphold the constitutional framework.

The Core Message

As these statements and rulings show, the Supreme Court is actively reasserting its role as the ultimate interpreter of law. Lower courts, no matter how ideologically driven, are reminded that their task is not to create or resist policy—but to enforce legal consistency and uphold the rule of law.

In an era where legal battles increasingly hinge on emergency rulings and fast-moving challenges, the Supreme Court’s current approach demonstrates its commitment to preserving the order, clarity, and authority that define the Constitution itself.