What would happen if a US circuit court consistently issued decisions contrary to recent Supreme Court precedent?

Question

I'm imagining a US circuit court where the majority of judges were ideologically opposed to the present direction of the Supreme Court. What would happen if they begin to consistently issue rulings that clearly contradict ones established recently by the Supreme Court?

• In this situation, most of the decisions would likely be reversed by the Supreme Court. How swiftly could they reverse? Would the increased number of disputed cases slow down the Supreme Court's normal functioning?
• Would the judges face reprimand or the threat of removal?
• What incentives prevent this from happening right now? As I understand it, most lower court decisions treat Supreme Court precedent, especially recent precedent, as inarguable truth, forming the axiomatic basis of the lower court's decisions. However, when lower court judges disagree with the recent Supreme Court decisions or philosophical trends, what stops them from ruling based on their own judicial philosophies instead?

Answer 1

In this situation, most of the decisions would likely be reversed by the Supreme Court. How swiftly could they reverse? Would the increased number of disputed cases slow down the Supreme Court's normal functioning?

I am unaware of any factors that would prevent the Supreme Court from reversing decisions as quickly as it wanted to in this situation. There are the so-called "shadow docket" cases in which the Supreme Court issues an order with reduced briefing and argument, and often with little explanation of the decision.

In addition, the court may choose to "consolidate" multiple cases that involve the same legal question.

Would the judges face reprimand or the threat of removal?

As far as I can tell, it is not normal to issue a reprimand simply because a judge issued a ruling that a higher court considers to not follow precedent.

Likewise, removal of a federal judge is generally considered to be an exclusive prerogative of Congress, by impeachment, and in practice impeachment is the only way federal judges get removed from office. Some legal scholars have argued that it might be Constitutional to establish some other means by statute (I linked to this argument in this prior answer), but I think this is purely theoretical.

What incentives prevent this from happening right now? As I understand it, most lower court decisions treat Supreme Court precedent, especially recent precedent, as inarguable truth, forming the axiomatic basis of the lower court's decisions. However, when lower court judges disagree with the recent Supreme Court decisions or philosophical trends, what stops them from ruling based on their own judicial philosophies instead?

I found a paper that discusses some of the incentives that lower courts have to avoid reversal, and tentatively argues based on statistics that we do in fact see courts responding to a reversal of their decisions:

"Patterns and Consequences of Judicial Reversals: Theoretical Considerations and Data from a District Court", by Joseph L. Smith, The Justice System Journal, Vol. 27, Number 1 (2006)

Smith mentions:

• judges may fear that being reversed will negatively affect their reputation in the legal community (p. 3.)

• they may be concerned that having a record of being frequently reversed will be counted against them when they have an opportunity for promotion (p. 3-4)

• if the judge's initial decision was intended to advance a judicial doctrine or legal policy, a reversal represents an ultimate defeat of that goal, and thus may amount to 'wasted' work for the judge, and a potentially reduced ability for the judge to influence the long-term development of the law (p. 4)

Answer 2

The judges involved would probably risk impeachment. The question refers to a US circuit court where the majority of judges were ideologically opposed to the present direction of the Supreme Court. That would not give them a legal basis to consistently or even inconsistently not abide by it's ruling. All courts, federal and state, are bound by the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court on U.S. Constitutional and other issues of federal law. Whether the judges agree with their ruling or not. As SC justice Antony Scalia once put it " A judge who is happy with the outcome of all his ruling is probably a very bad judge"

There were only 15 federal judicial impeachments in history. Most of them were over charges of making false statements, favoritism toward litigants or special appointees, intoxication on the bench, and abuse of the contempt power. On the flip side there were zero known apparent instances of a US circuit court consistently ruling against what the Supreme Court had ruled because of their ideological opposition. Were that to happen there would be far more such impeachment trials over the judges being guilty of (1)not having Respect for Law and (2)deciding cases based on Outside Influence

Answer 3

Predictability of law rests on the assumption that lower courts will follow the precedents established by the higher courts in their respec-ive jurisdictions. There is no assurance, however, that the higher courts will adhere to their own precedents, as stare decisis does not require this. Predictability thus becomes a function of attempting to foresee what the higher courts will do. If it is reasonably clear that the Supreme Court will depart from one of its precedents and the court of appeals anticipates this action, it can be said that the lower court's action was in fact predictable. An individual's entitlement to predict- ability does not extend, it can be argued, to being able to forecast that a court of appeals will not anticipate and will instead apply a rule that the Supreme Court would not endorse.

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4600&context=flr

They're supposed to follow precedents according to the law, because the system rests on this principle. I am guessing if a judge were to repeatedly ignore legal precedents, he may be ultimately dismissed for not being able to do his job properly.

First of all, all the training a lawyer receives teaches him or her to respect precedent, and to find rules by examining past cases. precedent is literally the stuff with which a lawyer works, rather more than the wording of statutes (although those are also important).

Secondly, as a lawyer works as a litigator, judges will usually ground their decisions on precedents, particularly in appellate cases, explaining their decisions largely in terms of how they conform to or extend precedents.

Thirdly, if a lower court judge fails to follow precedent, that judge will often be criticized by an appellate judge or justice, often in the course of an opinion overturning the lower-court judge's ruling. This does not feel pleasant to such a judge.

Fourthly, decision that fail to follow precedent are often (although not always) criticized by legal scholars, particularly in law review articles and treatises.

Fifthly, lower-court judges who often fail to follow precedents, are less likely to be recommended by senior judges for promotion to appellate positions. However, the actual appointments are controlled by politicians (in most cases) not other judges, so this factor may not be as strong it it would first seem.

Only once a judge gets to the level of the Supreme Court of a state, or the Federal Supreme Court, is that judge (now a Justice) expected to alter precedents as needed, and most justices have said that they make such changes only reluctantly.

I am not aware of any US state or federal statute or regulation that specifically;y requires judges to follow precedent.

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/81962/practically-what-prevents-judges-from-ignoring-precedent