Supreme Court Rulings Underscore Growing Partisanship in Lower Federal Courts

The Supreme Court has twice rejected Missouri's attempt to use a newly drawn Republican gerrymander for the 2026 congressional elections, with a third ruling also denying its use. This repeated intervention underscores a growing trend of Republican-appointed judges in lower federal courts exhibiting defiance toward established Supreme Court decisions when those decisions run counter to partisan Republican interests.

In one instance, a Trump-appointed judge in Missouri attempted to countermand a Supreme Court justice's initial ruling against the gerrymander. Following the full Court's reaffirmation, a panel of three Republican appellate judges again sought to reinstate the maps that had already been twice rejected. This pattern of judicial resistance has raised concerns about the increasing politicization of the federal judiciary.

These lower courts are seen as increasingly populated by ambitious Republican judges whose legal conclusions are perceived as either too extreme or too partisan for the current Supreme Court. These individuals are also viewed as potential candidates for future Supreme Court nominations, demonstrating unwavering loyalty to former President Donald Trump, the MAGA movement, or the Republican Party, irrespective of supporting legal arguments.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, has been described as a hub for MAGA legal theories. This circuit has previously attempted to remove the abortion medication mifepristone from the market, declared entire federal agencies unconstitutional, and ordered the discarding of mail-in ballots at the request of the Republican Party. The Supreme Court has frequently reversed decisions from this circuit.

This environment suggests that if Republicans maintain control of the Senate, future Republican presidents could appoint Supreme Court nominees who make current conservative justices appear moderate. Many of these judges are young enough to be considered for nominations in multiple future Republican administrations.

The shift in judicial confirmations has been influenced by changes in Senate procedures. Approximately 13 years ago, the Senate eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominees, allowing judges to be confirmed by a simple majority vote. This change, enacted after Democrats invoked the "nuclear option" following Republican obstruction of President Barack Obama's nominees, removed the necessity for judicial candidates to garner support from the opposing party.

This new confirmation landscape became evident when, in 2017, Senate Republicans held a Supreme Court seat open for a year until Trump could fill it. Trump largely relied on the Federalist Society, an organization of conservative lawyers, to identify judicial candidates. This group was notably focused on weakening the regulatory power of federal agencies.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, secured his position partly by advocating for the conservative legal movement's goal of limiting agency power. His written opinions prior to his nomination signaled his intent to make federal agencies more subservient to judicial oversight.

In the pre-2013 era, judges with Supreme Court ambitions often tempered their most controversial views to avoid alienating senators from the opposing party. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for instance, previously avoided taking a clear stance on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. However, after Gorsuch's confirmation, Kavanaugh publicly signaled his willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade.

This process now incentivizes judicial candidates to demonstrate their commitment to advancing their party's agenda. This is particularly true for Republican candidates, given Trump's preference for personally loyal nominees. However, Democratic candidates also face similar pressures.

Judges such as Lawrence VanDyke of the Ninth Circuit and Andrew Oldham and James Ho of the Fifth Circuit are noted for writing provocative opinions that seem designed to attract White House attention. VanDyke, for example, began an opinion on transgender women with a vulgar remark. Oldham has authored opinions critical of the First Amendment and voting by mail, while Ho is known for his