Tag: threats to 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.

Georgia legislature advances bill to keep judges’ private information out of public records

The Georgia House Judiciary Committee had advanced a bill that would shield personal information of state judges. The bill would allow judges to submit certain forms through the state Administrative Office of the Courts. The AOC would then forward information to the relevant local authorities, which would be charged with removing the judges’ personal information from public records.

The bill comes in response to ongoing threats to the judiciary across the United States. Keeping judicial addresses and phone numbers confidential is a small way to prevent harassment by dissatisfied litigants or others.

Did everyone miss the point of the Chief Justice’s Year-End Report?

Per tradition, Chief Justice John Roberts quietly released his 2024 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary on New Year’s Eve. Each year’s report briefly expounds on a single theme before concluding with a high-level statistical summary of the federal court’s work. The report typically garners relatively little attention, but this year was different. Some talking heads are convinced that the report is a direct jab at Donald Trump or J.D. Vance, or at least a warning to the country of the dystopian future heading our way on January 20. Others have suggested the report is an exercise in hypocrisy by a politicized Supreme Court that is unwilling to face criticism. Even the more dispassionate analyses have concluded that the report is, at its core, a condemnation of threats to judges or a call to protect judicial independence.

All of these have missed the point. The Year-End Reports are always terse, cautious, and carefully written, and the Chief Justice almost never directly states his views in full. One has to look for the hints. And this year the hints point to a real, if deliberately understated, concern about the erosion of respect for the rule of law and the country’s democratic institutions.

Continue reading “Did everyone miss the point of the Chief Justice’s Year-End Report?”

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 continue to face direct threats from the public

Three stories came across the wire today. A Washington woman was sentenced to nineteen months in prison after she left multiple voice mails for the judge threatening to “put a bullet in [his] head.” A South Bend, Indiana man was arrested at his home after making “disturbing threats” against two local judges. And a Minnesota man was charged after posting a Facebook video in which he threatened a judge and contemplated shooting up a courthouse.

Each of these individuals seems to have been angry about their own legal problems, and in some instances intoxication or mental illness may have been a factor. But they also made these threats in a modern political atmosphere that devalues judges and the court system, and makes personal attacks on judges–whether physical or verbal–almost ordinary. Just a few years ago, the vehemence with which Donald Trump attacked individual judges by name was shocking. Now that tactic has been embraced by the Democrats, who are doing everything they can to cloud the legitimacy of the courts and sully the names (and safety) of jurists who do not fall in line with the progressive agenda.

Do politicians want blood on their hands? They are not responsible for every lunatic who wants to harm a judge, but they could stop creating such fertile ground for lunacy to blossom.

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.

Death threats made against children of judge in Rittenhouse trial

Wisconsin judge Bruce Schroeder has drawn considerable attention for his handling of the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who is accused of killing two Antifa activists and wounding another during a riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin in August 2020. 

For better or worse, judges in high-profile trials always come under the microscope. And some of Judge Schroeder’s behaviors during the trial have not inspire enormous confidence in his personal and professional discretion. But fair and reasonable scrunity is quickly being replaced by physical threats, and the threats here are extremely serious.

Judge Schroeder has received thousands of vile messages, many of them including explicit death threats. Some of those threats are targeted at his children, who are now receiving round-the-clock protection. However you feel about the substance of the Rittenhouse trial, these types of actions are completely unacceptable in civilized society. Let’s hope that each and every one of these goons faces his or her own day in court in the very near future.

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.