The federal judge who was appointed in 2018 by Donald Trump announced his resignation from the federal judiciary’s largest organization. He criticized the fact that the association issued an unusual statement this week denouncing recent threats made against judges while remaining silent for years as conservative judges faced criticism and attacks.
Judge James C. Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit in New Orleans announced his resignation from the Federal Judges Association at a speech event hosted Saturday by the Federalist Society, a conservative group, at the University of Michigan Law School. The move comes after the group of 1,100 members stated in March that judges must not be intimidated or fear violence to perform their duties. Trump and his supporters have become increasingly critical of judges for blocking the Department of Government Efficiency and other parts of the Administration’s agenda. DOGE leader Elon Musk called last month for “an immediate wave of judicial impeachments.”
“I was very surprised by that statement. And the next morning, I sent an email to the organization saying that I wanted to resign,” Ho said of the Federal Judges Association. “I researched for myself, and I also asked the association if they ever issued any such statements when Justice Thomas received attacks, or Justice Alito. Justice Kavanaugh dealt with an assassination attempt. We’ve had federal district judges in Texas and in Florida – as well as, I’m sure, other states, but those are the ones that come to mind immediately – all faced the kinds of things that that statement was complaining about and more. Did we see these statements in 2024, 2023, or 2022? From what I can tell, no.”
You can’t claim to be in favour of independence when you only support decisions you agree with. Ho said that this is not the protection of the judiciary but rather a politicization of the judiciary. He argued that these statements are harmful to the cause that they seek to advance. When you are selective, one or both of these things can be true. Either of these two options is, in my opinion, a bad idea. The first option is to lie, implying that this principle doesn’t matter because you haven’t stood up for it before. This tells the world that we aren’t serious about judicial independence. “
The alternative, if you tell the truth, is even worse. You care deeply about this principle, be it judicial independence or freedom of speech. Ho said, “I think that this principle applies to many things.” If you are telling the truth, you care deeply about this principle. But there are some people whose views are so antithetical to yours that you do not think that they deserve this principle.
He concluded: “What you think of as an act of righteousness is seen by many people to be merely sanctimonious.”
President of the Federal Judges Association in U.S. Circuit J. Michelle Childs, who was appointed to the bench by Joe Biden as former president, sent an email last week to its members in which she stated that “the judiciary faces increasing threats including violence, intimidation and disinformation.”
Next, the Federal Judges Association released a longer public statement that didn’t elaborate on threats made against judges.
The report began with the statement that recent events “are a clear reminder of how important federal judges are in protecting our democracy and rule of law as they protect it.”
In the past, tensions have always existed between the three equal and separate branches of government. This has included criticisms of judicial interpretations. “The FJA is committed to ensuring that all Americans are informed accurately about the constitutional role of the U.S. judiciary: To impartially interpret laws created by Congress in the U.S. and enforced through the Executive Branch,” said the group. The group said that “specific decisions made by judges do not come from personal opinions but are based on an evaluation of the laws in the books.”
The group applauded those who, among them Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court, have “commented recently on the increase in criticism, violence and threats aimed at judges.”
The statement stated, “Irresponsible speech cloaked in misinformation undermines public confidence in our justice system’s ability to fulfill its constitutional obligations. The security of all federal judges, as well as those who serve in the judicial branches of our government, is essential to their capacity to maintain the rule of law and fulfill their constitutional duties without fear of undue pressure or intimidation. The Constitution is at risk if the independence of our judiciary begins to erode. Judicial security does not only mean protecting people, but also preserving our legal system’s integrity and public trust in an independent judiciary.’