Lower Courts Openly Defy SCOTUS

A federal judge in D.C. just exposed the intellectual dishonesty of "Kavanaugh stops" and proved that unexplained shadow docket orders are no match for the written law.

Intro: Federal judges are finally saying the quiet part out loud.

A quiet rebellion is spreading through the lower courts, targeted directly at the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” and the Trump administration’s aggressive use of it.

The latest and most significant blow came from U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell in Washington, D.C. Her recent ruling in Molina v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security did more than just halt a specific immigration enforcement operation.

It laid bare the constitutional crisis created when the highest court in the land issues cryptic, unsigned orders that upend established law without explanation.

The conflict centers on a practice legal experts call “Kavanaugh stops.” This term refers to immigration stops based on racial profiling or location, justified by a concurring opinion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a previous shadow docket case.

The Trump administration has treated this concurrence as binding law, using it to launch what plaintiffs described as a “terror campaign” of warrantless arrests in the nation’s capital.

Judge Howell stopped them cold. She ruled that government lawyers cannot simply wave a vague Supreme Court stay to justify ignoring the clear text of federal statutes.

The “Shadow Docket” Hustle

The mechanics of this judicial struggle are complex but critical. The “shadow docket” refers to emergency orders issued by the Supreme Court without full briefing, oral arguments, or signed majority opinions.

These orders were historically reserved for mundane procedural matters or true emergencies like stay of executions.

However, the conservative supermajority has weaponized this docket in recent years to fundamentally alter the legal landscape without showing their work.

The Trump administration relies on this opacity. They implement a controversial policy, lose in the lower courts, and then appeal to the Supreme Court for an emergency stay.

The Court frequently grants these stays, allowing the policy to go into effect while the litigation drags on. The administration then argues that these unexplained stays are binding precedents that lower courts must follow.

This dynamic creates a trap for district judges. They are tasked with applying the law to specific facts, yet they are told they must adhere to “rulings” that contain no legal reasoning.

Judge Howell refused to step into this trap. Her opinion targeted the Supreme Court’s order in Noem v. Vazquez Perdomo, which the government claimed validated their tactics.

Howell noted that the Noem majority issued a one-paragraph order with zero explanation. She wrote that “without reasoning, this order cannot even be considered as persuasive.”

⭐⭐Join thousands of supporters. Your subscription fuels unflinching truth and keeps every word free for all. No paywalls. Ever. ⭐⭐

The Statutory Shield

Judge Howell dismantled the government’s legal defense by sticking to the letter of the law. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) argued that they only needed “reasonable suspicion” to arrest someone for immigration violations.

They pointed to the Noem shadow docket order and Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence as proof that the Supreme Court supported this lower standard.

The actual statute says otherwise. Section 1357(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is explicit.

A warrantless arrest requires two things: “reason to believe” the person is in the country illegally and that they are “likely to escape” before a warrant can be obtained.

Courts have long held that “reason to believe” means probable cause, a much higher bar than “reasonable suspicion”.

DHS officials had publicly bragged about lowering the standard. Chief Border Patrol Agent Gregory Bovino told the press, “You notice I did not say probable cause... We need reasonable suspicion.”

When government lawyers tried to claim their bosses simply misspoke, Judge Howell was scathing. She refused to accept that high-ranking officials were “ignorant or incompetent.”

Instead, she took them at their word. They admitted to using the wrong legal standard, so their actions were illegal.

Breaking the Lyons Cage

The government had one final card to play: City of Los Angeles v. Lyons. This 1983 Supreme Court decision is a favorite tool for blocking civil rights lawsuits. It says that a plaintiff cannot sue to stop a police practice unless they can prove they personally will be subjected to it again.

The government argued that since the plaintiffs had already been released, they lacked “standing” to demand an injunction.

Judge Howell found a way around this barrier. She distinguished the Molina case from Lyons by focusing on the systemic nature of the DHS operation. Lyons involved a chokehold used during a routine traffic stop - a “one-off” event.

The D.C. crackdown was a declared “policy” targeting a specific racial and demographic group. The plaintiffs were still Latino, still lived in D.C., and still worked in the trades. They remained in the crosshairs of an active, government-directed surge.

This distinction is vital. It allows the court to protect the community from recurring harm. Howell ruled that the plaintiffs faced a “real and immediate” threat of rearrest.

She noted that some plaintiffs had already been arrested twice, proving the danger was not hypothetical.

The “Green Sky” Resistance

The language in Judge Howell’s opinion signals a shift in the judiciary’s temperament. She declared she was “not willing to be told by government lawyers that the sky is green.”

This phrase encapsulates the frustration of lower court judges who are forced to adjudicate reality while the government and the Supreme Court operate in a realm of “alternative facts” and shadow precedents.

Howell is not fighting alone. Judge Allison Burroughs in Massachusetts recently pushed back against Justice Gorsuch, who had accused lower courts of “defying” the Supreme Court.

Burroughs retorted that courts cannot defy orders that are impossible to decipher. She criticized the High Court for expecting district judges to divine the meaning of “cryptic” emergency stays.

This is a battle for the soul of the federal judiciary. District judges like Howell and Burroughs are asserting that the rule of law still matters. They are insisting that facts found in a courtroom carry more weight than unsigned memos from the shadow docket.

The Molina injunction does more than protect D.C. residents; it draws a line in the sand. It tells the Supreme Court that if they want to change the law, they have to put their names on a real opinion and justify it.

Join the resistance. Subscribe for more fearless commentary. Your support keeps this space open and ad-free.