Tag: attacks on judges

Federal Judges Association condemns attacks on the judiciary

The Federal Judges Association, a voluntary organization of federal judges, issued a statement on Wednesday condeming the recent attacks and threats against the federal judiciary on social media and elsewhere.

Many recent attacks have been fueled by judicial determinations that certain Trump Administration policies either violate federal law, or should be enjoined from going into effect until their legality can be determined. Such actions, commonplace in the courts for centuries, have incurred the wrath of Elon Musk and others. They have called for the impeachment (or worse) of many extremely respected judges — calls that are foolish at best, and verging on politically obscene.

The FJA’s statement sets out what any decent high school civics class should teach:

Specific decisions issued by judges are not formed from individual opinions, but rather are prepared against evaluation of what the ‘laws on the books’ require….

The security of federal judges and all those serving in the judicial branch of our government is fundamental to their ability to uphold the rule of law, and to fulfill their constitutional duty without fear or undue influence. Any erosion in the independence of the judiciary is a threat to our Constitution and to democratic rule of law. Ensuring judicial security is not just about protecting individuals, it is about preserving the integrity of our legal system and the public’s trust in an impartial judiciary.

Judges must be permitted to do their jobs without fear of violence or intimidation of any kind.

Yes.

New information on threats to federal judges

Jason Leopold of Bloomberg News has unearthed fascinating, and highly distressing, details on some of the more than 2,300 threats that were made against federal judges (including Supreme Court Justices) in 2022 and 2023 alone. The details come from a FOIA request to the US Marshals Service, and reflect investigative reports after the threats surfaced.

In some instances, threats were just examples of idiots blowing off steam. Some were generally angry about a particular court decision. But others were far more serious, including allegations of a hitman plot against a Supreme Court justice and another suspect who appeared to have planned to attack an assistant public defender.

ABA calls for mental health resources for the judiciary

At its annual meeting this week, the American Bar Association passed a resolution recognizing the many mental health challenges faced by state and federal judges, including exposure to traumatic evidence in the courtroom and increased threats against judges at their homes and workplaces.

The JD Journal reports:

The resolution sheds light on the psychological toll these challenging circumstances take on those within the judiciary and urges national court leaders to develop specialized training and processes. The goal is to provide judges, their support staff, and their families with access to professional, confidential treatment, working in tandem with court security teams.

The catalyst for this resolution has been the unsettling surge in threats and violent incidents targeting judges. Among the distressing incidents mentioned is the arrest of an armed individual outside the residence of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year. The assailant was later charged with attempted assassination. Additionally, the tragic 2020 murder of the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, shot by a disgruntled litigant at her New Jersey home, underscores the gravity of the situation.

…

The National Conference of State Trial Judges Chair, Delaware Superior Court Judge Vivian Medinilla, submitted the resolution’s report. The document emphasizes the necessity of shifting attention beyond judges’ well-being and towards the broader group affected by traumatic events – including judges’ staff and their families.

In an arena where exposure to distressing scenarios is all too common, the report argues that these individuals are also at risk of experiencing trauma, whether stemming from explicit threats or the very nature of court proceedings. From complex sentencing hearings to divorce cases, abuse situations, and matters involving sexual crimes, the judicial staff’s exposure to distressing scenarios is extensive.

Yes.

Judges speak out about growing threats of violence. Should they be able to arm themselves more easily?

This week, members of the Idaho Supreme Court issued a statement claiming that they, their families, and their employees have been targeted with threats and harrassment: “when disagreement becomes personal, to the point of threats against personal safety and security … a line has been crossed.” Threats of violence are now commonplace for many state and federal judges. And all too frequently, real violence erupts with tragic consequences.

Congress passed legislation last year that would increase security for federal judges. And now a Republican legislator is proposing a bill that would make it easier for federal judges to arm themselves on their way in and out of the courthouse.

It’s a difficult policy question as to whether the security of judges and their families is enhanced by easing their own access to firearms. But plainly more needs to be done to build confidence that those in the judiciary are safe from threats of violence and harassment simply for doing their jobs.

New Mexico advances legislation to criminalize threats against state judges

The New Mexico House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation that would impose criminal penalties on anyone who threatens a judge or the judge’s family members. The bill, which passed the House by a vote of 59-7, now heads to the state senate.

The proposed law would make it a misdemeanor to “doxx” any judge by sharing his or her personal information. Under the same law, it would be a fourth-degree felony to threaten a judge or the judge’s family with the intent of causing fear of great harm, disrupting the judge’s official duties, or retaliating for work done in court.

Some House members expressed concern that the bill criminalizes free speech. I am sympathetic to the concern that political speech be open, but the issue here is altogether different. Every ordered society limits the permissibility of threatening language. Here, threat to judges place a substantial risk of undermining the efficacy and legitimacy of the judicial system. Judges are prepared to have people upset with their decisions, but it is altogether different to ask them to serve when they are physically threatened.

We have seen too much of this behavior in recent years, including the recent threats to the young children of the judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse criminal trial. Criminalizing such malfeasance is long overdue.

Judges from around the world work to evacuate their female colleagues from Afghanistan

The safety of female judges in Afghanistan was precarious even before the botched American pullout left the Afghani people at the mercy of the Taliban and ISIS. Now the situation is far worse. Immeasurably, sickeningly worse.

One small point of light has been the efforts of private individuals and entities to protect Afghanis and, to the degree possible, get them and their families out of the country and on to safer ground. This Washington Post story highlights one such effort, by judges across the globe, to secure safe passage for their female Afghani colleagues. Their limited success in no way eradicates the catastrophe that is unfolding, but it does give one a certain degree of faith in the human spirit.

Afghan Supreme Court Justices assassinated in Kabul

Two Justices of the Supreme Court of Afghanistan were murdered by gunmen on Sunday while driving to work. The identity of the Justices has not been revealed, but reports suggest that both were women.

The Taliban denied responsibility for the attack, notwithstanding its pledge to continue “eliminating” government officials and other prominent figures. The Afghan government and the Taliban are currently engaged in peace talks (such as they are) in Doha, Qatar.

Judicial Conference to push for legislation and funding to assure safety of federal judges

In the wake of the horrific shooting of Judge Esther Salas’s son and husband at her New Jersey home last month, the Judicial Conference of the United States has resolved to seek aggressive legislation and funding to better protect federal judges and their families. The Judicial Conference’s press release, which lays out its proposals, is here.

Let’s hope that Congress acts quickly to provide the necessary resources.

Gunman opens fire at federal judge’s home, killing her son and wounding her husband

Several sources are reporting that a gunman came to the home of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas yesterday, and shot her son and husband when they answered the door. Her son, age 20, was killed and her husband was badly injured. Judge Salas was apparently in the basement at the time and was not hurt. The gunman, who was apparently dressed as a delivery driver, is still at large.

The motive for the shooting is unknown, although Judge Salas has presided over some high profile criminal cases since taking the federal bench in 2010. Unfortunately, attacks on judges and their families have happened before.

This is very sick, terrible news to start the week.

California approves plan to allow judges to comment on their own (and others’) decisions

The California Supreme Court has approved a change to its Code of Judicial Ethics, which would allow state judges to publicly comment on pending proceedings, including their own decisions and decisions of their colleagues. The most important change is to Canon 3B(9) and associated comments. The amended Canon now reads, in pertinent part:

In connection with a judicial election or recall campaign, this canon does not prohibit any judge from making a public comment about a pending proceeding, provided (a) the comment would not reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of the proceeding, and (b) the comment is about the procedural, factual, or legal basis of a decision about which a judge has been criticized during the election or recall campaign.

These changes have been in the works for some time, a reaction to the ugly 2018 campaign to recall state judge Aaron Persky. The sentiment is understandable, given that judges who produce unpopular decisions are sitting ducks in an election when they cannot even respond to unfair or oversimplified attacks by their antagonists. Permitting judges to at least clarify the context of their decisions, or to comment on the overall qualifications of a fellow judge whose career is being reduced to a single decision, may prevent voters from removing a judge rashly.

But there is still reason to be worried about whether this change will work for the better. Now that judges are permitted to comment on pending proceedings, they have less of an excuse to not comment when pressed by the media or an election opponent. Some judges might feel pressure to comment even when they do not want to do so. Others might choose not to comment and find themselves under pressure to justify that decision. Put differently, in some ways the original canon was cleaner because judges had no choice but to remain silent. Now they have more freedom, and that can be a blessing and a curse.

The new rules go into effect July 1. It will be a development worth watching.