U.S. Marshals Report Surge in Threats Against Federal Judges

Political tension and threats of violence against federal judges have been on the rise, particularly since the controversial Supreme Court decision terminating the federal right to abortion in 2022 was prematurely leaked to the public.

Data from the U.S. Marshals Service, which is responsible for the safety of federal judges, indicates a significant increase in threats. Over five months leading up to March 1st, 80 judges were threatened, but in the six weeks that followed, an additional 162 judges were threatened, marking a 102.5% increase, as reported by The New York Times.

Since mid-April, the pace of threats has decelerated slightly, yet the total number of judges threatened this fiscal year — 277 — comprises approximately a third of the judiciary. These threat statistics, while not publicly released, were shared with the Times by U.S. District Judge Esther Salas. Salas, whose son was tragically killed at her home’s entrance by a self-proclaimed “anti-feminist” lawyer, has since become an advocate for judicial safety.

In his annual report, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concerns about violence, intimidation, disinformation, and defiance of court judgments, labeling these actions as ones that “undermine our Republic, and are wholly unacceptable.”

Reports indicate that the Marshals Service has documented threats against more than 400 judges in 2023, a year following the Supreme Court’s decision to end federal abortion rights. After the leak of the Supreme Court’s ruling, an armed individual attempted to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh at his residence.

This development follows earlier reports that the residences of Kavanaugh and other conservative justices had been targeted with protests after the leaked majority decision by Justice Samuel Alito, which revealed the court’s direction in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

While some have attributed the rise in threats to rhetoric by former President Donald Trump and his administration, it’s essential to note that similar inflammatory language has reportedly been used by Democrats, including Sen. Chuck Schumer, who was seen as launching attacks against Justices Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh during an abortion rights rally in March 2020.

The significance of this should not be overlooked. Comments like Schumer’s have drawn criticism from several quarters, with Chief Justice Roberts issuing a rare public rebuke, labeling the statements as both “inappropriate” and “dangerous.”

However, Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor emeritus, argues that it’s not a new phenomenon for a presidential administration to criticize judges, citing historical precedents involving Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt.

The public’s right to information and the role of democratic institutions in ensuring safety for those serving in the judiciary remain paramount.