Firebrand Conservative Judges Use Flashy Rulings To Audition For Donald Trump

The Washington Post described speculation around the U.S. Supreme Court as “firebrand conservative judges might be using flashy rulings to audition for the president.”

“Analysis Five new judges recommended for appointment to the Supreme Court The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended four HC Chief Justices and a senior advocate for appointment to the apex court On 27 May, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the appointment of five judges to the Supreme Court”

Supreme Court Observer

It said “One judge appears to have dropped his long-standing support for birthright citizenship,” while another judge wrote that “the federal judiciary should not demand President Donald Trump’s ‘homework.’”

Supreme Court Observer

The paper also reported that “A third opened a recent dissent with a crude term for male genitalia,” adding to the sense that some judges were acting “like there might be” Supreme Court vacancies.

In the same account, the Washington Post framed the moment as “Speculation is swirling over potential departures at the high court,” with the court’s posture tied to political expectations around President Donald Trump.

The Supreme Court Observer reported that on 27 May the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the appointment of five judges to the Supreme Court.

It said the resolution was the “first set of recommendations made under the Chief Justice Surya Kant led Collegium since he assumed office in November 2025,” and noted that the resolution “did not disclose details about the judges and the deliberations of the Collegium.”

Supreme Court Observer

The Observer linked the recommendations to a shift in the court’s sanctioned strength, saying the Union cabinet approved a bill increasing the Court’s sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges.

It added that if all five judges are appointed, the Court’s sitting strength will be 37 judges, leaving just one less vacancy under the new sanctioned strength, and that with two retirements scheduled for June 2026 the Collegium is expected to recommend more judges in July.

The Observer also said the 27 May resolution recommended Senior Advocate V. Mohana directly from the Bar, along with four sitting Chief Justices: Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, and Justice Arun Palli.

The Supreme Court Observer described how the Court had two vacancies and how President Droupadi Murmu promulgated the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 to increase the sitting strength.

“Democracy Dies in Darkness By Julian Mark One judge appears to have dropped his long-standing support for birthright citizenship”

Washingtonpost

It said an official notification justified the expansion as a measure to ensure speedy justice and decrease pendency in the Supreme Court, and it characterized the move as “unusually swift and a rare instance of the President promulgating an ordinance to increase the sitting strength.”

Meanwhile, The Washington Post’s account of U.S. judicial behavior emphasized that “There are no Supreme Court vacancies,” even as it described judges acting “like there might be” vacancies.

Taken together in the sources, the U.S. discussion centers on perceived signals from judges about departures and politicization, while the Supreme Court Observer’s India-focused account centers on formal recommendations and changes to sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges.