A slate of anonymous federal judges is criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court for siding with President Donald Trump in emergency docket cases, while failing to address the politically-motivated decisions of lower courts that have resulted in the repeated use of the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. Twelve federal judges spoke to NBC News under condition of anonymity, largely faulting SCOTUS for “undermining” lower courts by issuing emergency docket decisions in the Trump administration’s favor but providing little to no reasoning for those decisions.

Out of the dozen judges who spoke to NBC News 10 said that they would like to see the Supreme Court explain its emergency docket decisions more clearly, with some explaining that clear reasoning assists lower courts in making better decisions and others claiming that siding with the Trump administration without explanation can “undermine” the perceived legitimacy of lower courts and their decisions. One judge even said that “somebody is going to die,” claiming that the Supreme Court’s emergency docket decisions inspire Trump supporters to target federal judges for harassment and even violence. That judge also claimed that Trump administration officials’ rhetoric inspires violence against federal judges, singling out White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Trump’s immigration policy chief Stephen Miller.

Those who claimed that the justices are “undermining” inferior courts argued that the short, often-unexplained emergency docket decisions from the Supreme Court “makes it seem like [lower court judges] did shoddy work and are biased against Trump” while simultaneously “validating the Trump administration’s criticisms.” One judge said, “It is inexcusable. They don’t have our backs.” Another said that he would appreciate it if the Supreme Court would clarify, “Let’s be clear, it’s not some crazy opinion, and this judge is not a monster.” Referring to Miller’s claims that lower court judges halting the president’s immigration agenda are engaged in a “judicial coup,” one judge said that the Supreme Court’s brief emergency docket decisions appear to the public to validate that claim. “It’s almost like the Supreme Court is saying it is a ‘judicial coup,’” he said.

Another judge said that lower courts have often issued overly political rulings which necessitate the Supreme Court’s emergency intervention. He said that “the whole ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ is a real issue.” He added, “As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane.”

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said much the same in comments to The Washington Stand. “The emergency docket of the Supreme Court has been active because the court has been forced to step in to stop out-of-control decisions by these same rogue judges. Their decisions have shown their ideological bias, contempt for the rule of law and precedent, and political motivations,” Von Spakovsky said. “These radical judges apparently believe they are part of a political movement to stop the legitimate actions of the Trump administration, and that the ends justify the means, even when they have no legal basis whatsoever for what they are doing.” He warned, “These judges pose one of the biggest threats we have ever faced to our republican form of government, our democratic process, and the safety and security of the nation.” von Spakovsky added, “The Supreme Court is like the little Dutch boy trying to put its fingers in the dyke to stop a flood of rampant lawlessness being spawned by lawless judges.”

“Any federal judges who provide anonymous criticisms of the Supreme Court to journalists are engaging in unethical judicial conduct that demonstrates their unfitness to be federal judges,” von Spakovsky further noted. This follows news that Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia raised “concerns” earlier this year over the Trump administration’s potential responses to rulings adverse to the administration’s agenda. Without basis and despite the Trump administration’s compliance with Boasberg’s orders — orders which were subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional — the D.C. judge opined that the Trump administration may foment a ”constitutional crisis” and openly defy even the Supreme Court. No such event has yet come to pass, and numerous legal experts have observed that Boasberg’s comments reveal a deep-seated anti-Trump bias in the D.C. District Court.

According to NBC News, the Trump administration has filed petitions on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket 23 times since January 20, and the justices have sided with the Trump administration in 17 of those cases. In two instances, the Supreme Court disagreed with the administration and allowed lower court decisions to stand, two cases were withdrawn by the administration, one was dismissed, and one is still pending. NBC News noted that in five of the decisions in the Trump administration’s favor, the Supreme Court offered “no substantive reasoning at all,” while others included only a few pages explaining the decisions. Still others were lengthier, explaining emergency decisions in clear and detailed terms.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court addressed the use of sweeping “universal injunctions” by lower courts, ruling that the practice cannot continue. According to an analysis by TWS, at least 25 universal injunctions were imposed against the Trump administration between January 20 and June 27, when the Supreme Court barred the further use of universal injunctions. Many of those injunctions were subsequently reversed or stayed by higher courts. In arguments before SCOTUS, the Trump administration noted that the widespread use of universal injunctions often necessitated the administration’s use of the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, in order not to be impeded by unlawful court orders that would be eventually overturned on appeal anyway.