Gorsuch Warns Lower Courts After Repeatedly Ignoring Supreme Court Rulings


A Supreme Court justice appointed by President Donald Trump is fed up.
Justice Neil Gorsuch on Thursday blasted lower courts for repeatedly defying rulings from the highest court in the land, as the justices handed the Trump administration a narrow victory in a case over federal research grants.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court allowed the administration to cut millions of dollars in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants that supported projects tied to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, gender identity research, and COVID-19. The NIH, the world’s largest source of public biomedical research funding, will no longer award grants based on race or DEI objectives under the ruling, The Daily Caller reported.
Special Election To Replace MTG Sets Up Big Fight In Congress
Read More
“This marks the third time in a matter of weeks this Court has had to reverse a lower court on an issue it had already addressed,” Gorsuch wrote, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them.”
The case arose after a federal judge in Massachusetts ordered the government to continue payments despite a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year permitting Trump to cut similar DEI-related grants. A coalition of 16 Democratic attorneys general and public health groups sued, alleging discrimination.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett provided the deciding vote. She joined conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in terminating the NIH grants, but sided with Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — to leave intact a lower court’s decision scrapping NIH guidance documents that described the agency’s policy priorities.
Gorsuch stressed that the district court’s actions were not a “one-off,” pointing to two other recent cases where lower courts resisted Supreme Court orders.
In July, the justices ruled 7-2 to block a district court’s attempt to override the high court’s order allowing Trump to resume third-country deportations. Even Justice Elena Kagan, who had dissented from the original ruling, sided with the majority to enforce the order.
“I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed,” she wrote.
That same month, the high court struck down another lower court ruling that sought to block Trump from firing three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The justices had already granted Trump authority in May to dismiss members of administrative agencies.
“All these interventions should have been unnecessary, but together they underscore a basic tenet of our judicial system: Whatever their own views, judges are duty-bound to respect ‘the hierarchy of the federal court system created by the Constitution and Congress,’” Gorsuch wrote.
Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has signed executive orders dismantling Biden-era DEI programs, calling them “radical” and “shameful discrimination.” Last April, the Court upheld Trump’s authority to cut teacher training grants linked to DEI, a precedent Gorsuch said the Massachusetts court ignored in this NIH case.
Since the ruling halts immediate funding, the administration is likely to count it as another win in the series of emergency appeals it has brought to the high court.
In a concurring opinion, Barrett wrote that the case should have been filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington rather than in a district court. That court hears disputes involving federal contracts and could award damages later, but would not provide immediate relief.
The decision reversed U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, who in June ordered NIH to restore the grants after lawsuits from researchers and 16 Democratic-led states. Young used unusually sharp language, declaring: “This represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community. I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out.”
It is unclear why the judge legally compelled the Trump administration to fund programs to “raise awareness” about LGBTQ issues or why that is tantamount to “discrimination.”
Trump Teases ‘Something Big’ Coming After FBI Raid of 2020 Ballots In GA


Former President Donald Trump signaled Monday that “something” significant may be revealed relating to the 2020 presidential election after the FBI executed a search warrant in Fulton County, Georgia, and seized ballots and other related election materials.
Speaking on The Dan Bongino Show, Trump reiterated long-standing claims that the 2020 election was flawed and said evidence from the Fulton County search could lead to “interesting things” coming to light. He did not provide specific details about what information may emerge or when it might be disclosed.
Trump also repeated assertions that there were irregularities in vote counts in states he did not win and encouraged Republicans to consider changes to election administration processes.
He suggested that actions taken in Georgia could be part of a broader review of election conduct, though he provided no new evidence to support allegations that the 2020 results were affected by fraud.
Republican Calls Bad Bunny Halftime Show Illegal, Demands Action
He stated to the audience that certain states had such corrupt vote-counting practices that the results were manipulated, including in states he claims to have won. T
rump mentioned that evidence from the search in Fulton County would soon uncover “interesting things.” He also encouraged Republicans to think about “nationalizing the voting” process.
“We have states that I won that show I didn’t win,” Trump told Bongino. “Now you’re going to see something in Georgia, where they were able to get, with a court order, the ballots.”
“You’re going to see some interesting things come out. But you know, like the 2020 election, I won that election by so much,” Trump said.
Trump’s comments follow federal authorities’ Jan. 28 execution of a court-approved warrant at the Fulton County Election Hub and Operations Center in Union City, where agents seized ballots from the 2020 general election, voting machine tapes, and voter rolls as part of an ongoing investigation.
Federal officials have said the search was part of normal investigative procedures under a criminal warrant; they have not released further details on potential charges or findings tied to the seizure.
Fulton County officials on Monday sued the federal government, claiming the search warrant execution was flawed and that FBI agents improperly seized voting data.
The Fulton County materials are at the center of renewed scrutiny related to election administration and record preservation. Critics and supporters alike have offered differing interpretations of the search, with Republican allies of Trump calling it overdue scrutiny and Democratic officials dismissing broader claims of fraud.
No formal legal actions involving the seized materials have been announced, and it remains unclear what, if any, findings may result from the ongoing investigation.
Meanwhile, the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Atlanta field office was forced out this month after questioning the Justice Department’s renewed push to probe Fulton County’s role in the 2020 election, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The sources told MS NOW that SAC Paul Brown was ousted after raising concerns about the FBI’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s longstanding allegations of voter fraud in the Atlanta-anchored county.
Brown also refused to conduct searches and seizures of records related to the 2020 election, according to sources who spoke on condition of anonymity. Authorities seized 700 boxes related to Fulton County’s 2020 general election.
Brown was appointed to oversee all investigations and personnel in Georgia last February.
SHOWDOWN ON THE FIVE: Jessica Tarlov Drops Truth Bomb on GOP’s Controversial Voter Legislation

SHOWDOWN ON THE FIVE: Jessica Tarlov Drops Truth Bomb on GOP’s Controversial Voter Legislation

WASHINGTON — A ferocious battle over the soul of American democracy erupted on cable news this week, proving once again that the clash over election integrity is reaching a boiling point.
During a high-stakes segment on Fox News' top-rated program The Five, liberal co-host Jessica Tarlov ignited an intense firestorm by sounding the alarm on the Republican-backed SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act).
Her warning was sharp, direct, and unapologetic: This isn't just a simple Voter ID bill—it’s a bureaucratic roadblock designed to keep millions of legal Americans away from the ballot box.
"Far Beyond Voter ID": Tarlov Sounds the Alarm
While GOP proponents frame the SAVE Act as a common-sense measure to restore trust in elections, Tarlov shredded that narrative live on air, dissecting the fine print of the proposed federal mandate.
Under the bill, anyone registering to vote in federal elections would be legally required to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship—such as a physical U.S. passport, a certified birth certificate, or naturalization papers.
"People hear 'Voter ID' and think it’s just showing a driver's license at the counter," Tarlov argued. "It’s not. This bill demands physical proof of citizenship upfront. Millions of everyday, hard-working American citizens do not have a valid passport sitting in a drawer or immediate access to an official birth certificate. This creates an artificial barrier to a fundamental constitutional right." without instant paperwork access.
Integrity Guardrail or Voter Suppression? The Great Debate
The fiery television debate reflects a massive political rift tearing through Capitol Hill and statehouses across the country.
The Conservative Defense: Republican sponsors and conservative commentators insist the measure is vital to national security and sovereign elections. They argue that verifying citizenship at registration is a necessary safeguard to prevent non-citizens from ever slipping onto federal voter rolls.

The Progressive Pushback: Critics like Tarlov argue that non-citizen voting in federal elections is already illegal, strictly policed, and exceptionally rare. Opponents caution that adding heavy administrative hurdles will unintentionally disenfranchise lawful voters—particularly students, low-income citizens, rural voters, and women whose names have changed due to marriage.
The Stakes Couldn't Be Higher
As the debate over voter access versus election security intensifies, the SAVE Act has turned into a major political litmus test.
Is requiring physical proof of citizenship a mandatory protection to guarantee that every vote is lawful? Or is it an unnecessary, red-tape nightmare that punishes legal citizens for not having their paperwork in order?
One thing is certain: as long as voices like Jessica Tarlov continue to push back on prime-time television, the fight over who gets to vote—and how hard it is to do so—is far from over.
Jessica Tarlov Says Trump Has 35% Approval Rating in Most Polls
Supporters of the bill strongly disagree, saying it is designed to protect election integrity by preventing non-citizens from registering to vote. Opponents argue the existing safeguards are already sufficient and fear the measure could unintentionally disenfranchise lawful voters. Is the SAVE Act a necessary election safeguard, or does it create unnecessary barriers to voting?