Retired Federal Judges Asking Supreme Court to Hold Trump to Rule of Law

Supreme Court Sees Amicus Brief Surge From Former Federal Judges in Trump Cases

A growing number of former federal judges have filed multiple amicus briefs in U.S. Supreme Court cases involving Donald Trump, particularly in cases concerning the scope of presidential power and the independence of federal agencies. This surge in participation is seen as a response to perceived threats to the rule of law and the judiciary's independence. 

Key Cases and Amicus Filings

Former judges have weighed in on several significant cases: 

• Trump v. Slaughter: Thirteen retired federal judges filed a brief opposing Trump's claim of authority to fire a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) without cause. The brief argues that allowing at-will removal authority would "upend the constitutional balance that safeguards the rule of law". The case concerns the president's power over independent agencies, a major separation of powers issue the court is considering this term.
• Tariff Authority Case: A larger group of 31 former federal judges urged the Court to affirm that the President lacks the unilateral power to impose sweeping tariffs by declaring national emergencies. Their brief warned that barring judicial review of such emergency declarations "would give the President tyrannical powers".
• Trump v. United States (Immunity Case): While not solely from former judges, an amicus brief in this case, challenging Trump's claim of absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, was signed by prominent former Department of Justice (DOJ) officials and U.S. attorneys. The brief asserts that the Constitution does not support a former president's immunity from criminal responsibility.
• Lower Court Cases: The trend extends beyond the Supreme Court. Nearly 350 former state and federal judges signed a brief in a lower court case challenging a Trump executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, arguing it "undermines the rule of law". 

Significance of the Surge

The involvement of former federal judges as amici curiae ("friends of the court") is a relatively new phenomenon in its current frequency. Signatories often include judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, adding a bipartisan dimension to their arguments. 
​
Retired U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin noted that this unprecedented level of participation is driven by a desire to speak on behalf of the judiciary amid attacks from the Trump administration on sitting judges. While the persuasive weight of these briefs is a subject of debate, some Supreme Court justices have occasionally referenced arguments from former judges in past opinions.