Lawrence Hurley for NBC News:

Federal judges are frustrated with the Supreme Court for increasingly overturning lower court rulings involving the Trump administration with little or no explanation, with some worried the practice is undermining the judiciary at a sensitive time.

Some judges believe the Supreme Court, and in particular Chief Justice John Roberts, could be doing more to defend the integrity of their work as President Donald Trump and his allies harshly criticize those who rule against him and as violent threats against judges are on the rise.

In rare interviews with NBC News, a dozen federal judges — appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, and serving around the country — pointed to a pattern they say has recently emerged:

Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority.

And then the Supreme Court, in emergency rulings, swiftly rejects the judges’ decisions with little to no explanation.

Emergency rulings used to be rare. But their number has dramatically increased in recent years.

Ten of the 12 judges who spoke to NBC News said the Supreme Court should better explain those rulings, noting that the terse decisions leave lower court judges with little guidance for how to proceed. But they also have a new and concerning effect, the judges said, validating the Trump administration’s criticisms. A short rebuttal from the Supreme Court, they argue, makes it seem like they did shoddy work and are biased against Trump.

“It is inexcusable,” a judge said of the Supreme Court justices. “They don’t have our backs.”

All 12 judges spoke on condition that they not be identifiable, some because it is considered unwise to publicly criticize the justices who ultimately decide whether to uphold their rulings and others because of the risk of threats.

Judges are increasingly targeted, with some facing bomb threats, “swattings” and other harassment. Judges especially involved in high-profile cases — and their families — have reported receiving violent threats…..

e Supreme Court has an obligation to explain rulings in a way the public can understand, a third judge said, adding that when the court so frequently rules for the administration in emergency cases without fully telling people why, it sends a signal. The court has had strong left-leaning majorities in the past, but what is different now is the role emergency cases are playing in public discourse.

The Supreme Court, that judge said, is effectively endorsing Miller’s claims that the judiciary is trying to subvert the presidency.

“It’s almost like the Supreme Court is saying it is a ‘judicial coup,’” the judge said.

Not all judges who were interviewed shared that view. Some were more reluctant to criticize the justices.

A judge appointed by President Barack Obama said that while the Supreme Court could do more to explain itself, some lower court judges had been out of line in blocking Trump policies.

“Certainly, there is a strong sense in the judiciary among the judges ruling on these cases that the court is leaving them out to dry,” he said. “They are partially right to feel the way they feel.”

But, the judge added, “the whole ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ is a real issue. As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane.”….