Lower courts are thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court, and Justice Neil Gorsuch has had enough, as the Daily Caller reports. Last week, he called out a troubling pattern of defiance that’s undermining the rule of law. It’s a judicial rebellion that conservatives see as a dangerous overreach by progressive judges.

In recent weeks, the Supreme Court reversed lower court rulings three times, spotlighting a clash over the Trump administration’s efforts to cut National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants tied to diversity and gender ideology programs.

Gorsuch’s sharp rebuke signals frustration with judges who seem to cherry-pick dissenting opinions over binding precedent. This isn’t just a legal spat -- it’s a fight over who gets to call the shots.

Back in April, the Supreme Court greenlit the Trump administration’s move to terminate teacher training grants focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Lower courts, however, didn’t get the memo. Their defiance suggests a deeper agenda to protect progressive policies, even when the highest court says otherwise.

Pattern of defiance emerges

In June, a lower court doubled down, allowing a lawsuit to proceed that blocked the Trump administration from cutting NIH grants similar to those already ruled on. The court leaned on dissenting justices’ opinions, ignoring the majority’s clear directive. It’s as if some judges think they can rewrite Supreme Court rulings to suit their preferences.

Gorsuch didn’t mince words, stating, “Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them.”

His point cuts deep: judicial hierarchy isn’t optional, no matter how much a judge might dislike a ruling. Conservatives argue this defiance erodes trust in the system.

The June ruling wasn’t an isolated incident. Gorsuch pointed to two other cases where lower courts flouted Supreme Court orders. This pattern has conservatives fuming, seeing it as a deliberate push to obstruct the Trump administration’s agenda.

Third-country deportations at issue

In July, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, slapped down a district court’s attempt to halt third-country deportations authorized by the Trump administration.

The lower court’s move was a bold sidestep of a prior Supreme Court order. Justice Elena Kagan, despite opposing the high court's decision, noted, “I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed.”

Kagan’s comment underscores a growing frustration: lower courts are playing fast and loose with their authority. For conservatives, this is evidence of judicial activism run amok, prioritizing ideology over legal duty. The Supreme Court’s intervention was a necessary check on this overreach.

That same month, another lower court tried to block President Donald Trump’s effort to remove three Democrat members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The Supreme Court swiftly overturned the decision, reinforcing its earlier May ruling allowing such firings. The message was clear: lower courts don’t get to ignore precedent just because they lean left.

Judicial hierarchy at issue

Gorsuch emphasized that emergency docket decisions, while not final on the merits, should guide lower courts’ discretion in similar cases. Yet some judges seem to treat these rulings as mere suggestions. This selective obedience fuels conservative arguments that the judiciary is being weaponized against their agenda.

“If nothing else, the promise of our legal system that like cases are treated alike means that a lower court ought not invoke the ‘persuasive authority’ of a dissent,” Gorsuch wrote. His words are a polite but pointed jab at judges who cherry-pick arguments to push progressive policies. It’s a practice that conservatives say undermines fairness.

The NIH grant cases are particularly contentious. Lower courts’ refusal to follow the Supreme Court’s April ruling on DEI grants shows a willingness to prioritize ideology over law. Conservatives see this as part of a broader effort to entrench woke policies, even when voters and the highest court say otherwise.

Conservatives demand accountability

The Supreme Court’s repeated interventions highlight a deeper issue: a judiciary that sometimes acts as if it’s above the law. Gorsuch’s frustration resonates with conservatives who believe lower courts are obstructing the will of the people. Yet, they also empathize with judges facing complex legal battles, even if their rulings cross the line.

“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,’” Gorsuch wrote. His call for respect hits hard, reminding judges that personal beliefs don’t trump constitutional order. Conservatives cheer this as a defense of accountability.

The fight isn’t just about grants or deportations -- it’s about whether the judiciary will honor the Supreme Court’s authority. For conservatives, Gorsuch’s stand is a rallying cry to restore order and ensure the rule of law prevails. Lower courts, take note: the highest court isn’t playing games.