Frustrated federal judges blasted the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, calling the court out for its lack of guidance and saying judges "would just love to hear your reasoning as to why you rule that way," in a response to the high court’s curt emergency rulings.

In an unusual 80-minute venting session, Politico reports, the Richmond-based court openly debated Thursday on how to follow the terse guidance from the high court and continue their own duty to complete detailed rulings on cases.

Some 4th Circuit Court of Appeals judges have posed the question of whether they still had a role to play or if it's expected that they will "simply reiterate the high court’s orders and leave it at that," according to Politico.

Judge James Wynn, a President Barack Obama appointee, addressed the ongoing questions.

“They’re leaving the circuit courts, the district courts out in limbo,” Wynn said during oral arguments in a case about the Department of Government Efficiency employees’ access to Social Security data. “We’re out here flailing. … I’m not criticizing the justices. They’re using a vehicle that’s there, but they are telling us nothing. They could easily just give us direction and we would follow it.”

“They cannot get amnesia in the future because they didn’t write an opinion on it. Write an opinion,” Wynn said. “We need to understand why you did it. We judges would just love to hear your reasoning as to why you rule that way. It makes our job easier. We will follow the law. We will follow the Supreme Court, but we’d like to know what it is we are following.”

These judges are the first to suggest that the high court is confusing the lower courts, especially following a July order from SCOTUS justices telling lower courts they must follow its rulings on its "so-called emergency docket" — whether the cases have reached their courts or not.

The Supreme Court’s action must mean something,” said Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a Reagan appointee. “It doesn’t do these things just for the kicks of it.”

Last week, a federal judge in Boston who sided with Harvard University and ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze nearly $2.2 billion in federal grants delivered a "gutsy challenge" to the U.S. Supreme Court and Trump, calling on lower courts to "safeguard academic freedom."

In the 84-page order, Judge Allison Burroughs calls the government's use of "combating antisemitism" as a "smokescreen" for an "ideological assault" on universities, criticizing the Supreme Court for its recent emergency rulings.

The administration's move to freeze the funding violated U.S. law and the Constitution's free speech protections, she wrote.

Burroughs cited Justice Neil Gorsuch's decision to reprimand and criticize district court judges not to "defy" the Supreme Court, adding that it was "unhelpful and unnecessary." She wrote that lower courts are working to make sense of cryptic Supreme Court orders that are not "models of clarity," especially as "they are working to find the right answer in a rapidly evolving doctrinal landscape ... without much guidance or consensus."