On Tuesday, a new analysis revealed what a recent Republican attempt to circumvent the court could mean for the future of the U.S. judiciary. According to Vox senior Supreme Court correspondent Ian Millhiser, the actions of Missouri judges aligned with President Donald Trump suggest that Republicans may continue to move federal courts to the far-right as conservative jurists seek promotion by pushing a MAGA-oriented agenda.
“The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Missouri may not use a newly drawn Republican gerrymander during the 2026 congressional election,” writes Millhiser. “This decision should surprise no one because, about two weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Missouri may not use a newly drawn Republican gerrymander during the 2026 congressional election. That second decision, moreover, followed an even earlier one by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which ruled that Missouri may not use a newly drawn Republican gerrymander during the 2026 congressional election. In that matter, Kavanaugh acted alone under a process that allows a single justice to dispose of a case — a process that the justices rarely invoke unless they view a case as so one-sided that there’s no need to formally refer it to their colleagues. So, for those keeping track at home, that’s three times that the Supreme Court needed to decide the same exact question in less than three weeks.”
As Millhiser explains, all of this happened because a handful of Republican judges attempted to ignore the rulings. Within minutes of Kavanaugh’s first ruling that Missouri cannot use the Republican gerrymander, a Trump-appointed judge in Missouri tried to countermand the decision. Then, after the entire Court reaffirmed Kavanaugh’s opinion, a panel of three Republican appellate judges again tried to reinstate the new maps that the Supreme Court had already twice rejected.
According to Millhiser, the lower federal courts are filled with ambitious Republican judges who reach conclusions that are either too extreme or too partisan even for the current conservative Supreme Court. These courts are also full of potential candidates for a Supreme Court nomination who have shown unwavering loyalty to Trump, the MAGA movement, or the Republican Party. “One lower court,” writes Millhiser, “the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, now functions as a kind of think tank for MAGA legal theories that less partisan judges would scoff at in disgust. This is the same court, for example, that attempted to pull the abortion medication mifepristone from the market. It’s a court that declares entire federal agencies unconstitutional. Or that orders thousands of lawfully cast ballots thrown in the trash after the Republican Party asks them to do so. The Fifth Circuit is also frequently reversed from the left by the Supreme Court.”
Conservative judges have learned that promotion comes from pushing the MAGA agenda, and as a result, writes Millhiser, “The lower courts are now full of judges who write extreme and often needlessly provocative opinions that seem designed to catch the eye of someone in the White House.” If a vacancy does open up on the Supreme Court – and it is rumored that Alito may soon retire – “Trump will have no shortage of judges who appear to have spent their judicial careers looking for opportunities to demonstrate just how eager they are to advance a MAGA agenda, even when that means moving several steps to the right of a Supreme Court dominated by conservative Republicans.”