In a troubling trend, over the course of just six weeks, 162 judges reported threats against them, marking a significant escalation in hostility towards the judiciary. This alarming spike in threats aligns with a wave of intense rhetoric, particularly from former President Donald Trump, who has publicly criticized judges ruling against his administration. In some instances, he has even suggested that Congress should impeach these judges. The rising threats have not gone unnoticed, with several judges expressing concerns about their safety and calling for political leaders to exercise caution in their speech.
According to data, the frequency of threats has slightly decreased since mid-April. From April 14 to May 27, an additional 35 judges were reported as having received threats. However, the total number of judges threatened this fiscal year has reached 277, which is approximately one-third of the judiciary. This data was shared exclusively with The New York Times by Judge Esther Salas of the Federal District Court for New Jersey, who has been a vocal advocate for judicial safety following the tragic murder of her son, Daniel Anderl, by a disgruntled lawyer in 2020. Judge Salas emphasizes that these statistics represent a serious issue that should concern everyone, stating, “This has nothing to do with hysteria or hyperbole; these numbers tell a dramatic story.”
The Marshals Service, which is responsible for the security of federal judges, defines a threat as “any action or communication, whether explicit or implied, of intent to assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere” with a marshals-protected person, including judges. This definition is aligned with a federal statute that criminalizes interference with federal officials performing their duties. The data from the Marshals Service indicates that threats against judges have been on the rise, particularly following significant political events, such as the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which significantly impacted judges' safety.
Many judges have faced backlash for ruling against President Trump’s executive actions, particularly regarding immigration policies aimed at mass deportations. Recently, Judge Brian E. Murphy of the U.S. District Court in Boston ordered the government to maintain custody of certain deportees, challenging the administration's strategies. The White House labeled Judge Murphy a “far-left activist,” illustrating the tense relationship between the judiciary and the executive branch. Trump’s social media posts have further inflamed tensions, with him denouncing “USA hating judges” in capital letters, intensifying concerns over the safety of those who oppose his policies.
Some judges have reported receiving unsolicited pizza deliveries at their homes, a tactic perceived as intimidation. Judge Salas revealed that a staggering 103 pizzas were sent anonymously to her residence, including deliveries made in honor of her deceased son. Such actions have prompted investigations by authorities into the harassment of judges and their families.
The trend of increasing threats against judges reflects broader societal tensions and the dangerous implications of political rhetoric on judicial independence. As judges continue to face intimidation, it raises critical questions about the safety of the judiciary and the ability of judges to perform their duties without fear of retribution. The need for political leaders to tone down their rhetoric is more pressing than ever, as the safety of judges and the integrity of the judicial system hang in the balance.
In summary, the alarming rise in threats against judges, coupled with harsh political rhetoric, poses significant challenges for the rule of law in the United States. As these events unfold, the judiciary's independence and the safety of its members must remain a priority for all concerned citizens.
