Federal judges who have ruled against the Trump administration this year are experiencing a surge in threats, raising concerns about their personal safety and the broader independence of the judiciary.
Earlier this month, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s sister received a bomb threat. Additionally, lower court judges who have temporarily halted aspects of President Trump’s efforts to dismantle federal agencies and programs have been targeted on social media.
Some Republican lawmakers aligned with Trump have even suggested impeachment proceedings against several of these judges, despite their lifetime appointments.
Elon Musk, who oversees the Department of Government Efficiency and has been instrumental in making cuts to federal agencies, has frequently posted on social media advocating for the impeachment of judges who obstruct or delay Trump’s initiatives.
These attempts to undermine the judiciary coincide with the administration’s moves to dismiss attorneys from the Justice Department and the Pentagon, penalize private law firms that have represented clients Trump opposes, and withdraw from engagement with the American Bar Association.
Judge Richard Sullivan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit emphasized that in his lifetime, four federal judges have been murdered in retaliation for their judicial rulings.
“This is not hypothetical,” Sullivan stated during a news conference this week. As chair of a Judicial Conference panel on security matters, he underscored the gravity of the issue. “It’s real. It’s happened before. We have to be certain that it doesn’t happen again,” he added.
The Federal Judges Association, a voluntary organization representing over 1,000 judges nationwide, stressed the crucial role of the judiciary in upholding democracy and maintaining a lawful society.
“Judges must be able to do their jobs without fear of violence or undue influence,” the association asserted in a written statement to NPR.
Escalating Threats at an Early Stage
Legal experts have noted a disturbing trend: attacks on judges are occurring at a notably early stage in legal proceedings—sometimes even before the Supreme Court has had an opportunity to weigh in as the final arbiter.
“We have a system of justice that allows for appeals,” remarked Judge Jeffrey Sutton, chief judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. “That’s typically the way it works. Impeachment is not and shouldn’t be a short-circuiting of that process. And so it is concerning if impeachment is used in a way that is designed to do just that.”
Historically, only 15 federal judges have been impeached over the past two centuries, mostly for serious offenses such as bribery, corruption, or perjury.
Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck pointed out that the likelihood of a judge being successfully impeached is minimal since removing a judge requires a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate.
“The more that people like Elon Musk are putting on the wall the idea that it’s appropriate to attack these judges for nothing more than ruling against the federal government, the more that we’re normalizing what really are in the main very serious threats to judicial independence,” Vladeck said.
The Rule of Law at Risk
Paul Grimm, who served as a federal judge for 26 years, argued that even the mere suggestion of impeachment can serve as an intimidation tactic.
“And if you try to intimidate judges, if that’s your goal, so that they do not do their constitutional duty, then you jeopardize the rule of law,” said Grimm, now the director of the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School. “And without the rule of law, every liberty and every right that we cherish as Americans is vulnerable.”
Grimm expressed particular concern about online posts revealing the personal addresses of judges and their family members, describing this as a severe transgression.
Nearly five years ago, a disgruntled litigant murdered the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas at her home in New Jersey.
In 2022, a man armed with a gun and zip ties traveled to the residence of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Upon noticing a security detail, he turned away. He later pleaded not guilty to attempted assassination charges and is awaiting trial this year.
Additionally, in 2023, a state court judge in Maryland was shot and killed in his driveway.
Threats Linked to Judicial Decisions
The U.S. Marshals Service has reported a sharp increase in threats against federal judges, with numbers having doubled in recent years, according to the latest data. These threats have targeted judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Justice Barrett faced intense criticism this month from right-wing political commentators after she joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s liberal justices in ruling against Trump’s attempt to freeze foreign aid.
Meanwhile, lower court judges have been subjected to online attacks for their rulings on Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team, efforts to restore government web pages, and the freeze on foreign aid.
Although the U.S. Marshals are responsible for protecting federal judges, their oversight falls under the U.S. attorney general rather than the judiciary itself, a situation that has raised alarms in Congress.
“A judge’s security is dependent in many ways on the Marshals Service who the president appoints to protect the judges, and if a president doesn’t like a decision that’s coming from a judge, theoretically they could pull their security,” warned Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, during a congressional hearing this month.
This year, the Trump administration has already revoked security protections for former military and national security officials who had previously opposed Trump during his first term.
Swalwell suggested that Congress should explore the possibility of establishing an independent security force for judges, separate from the executive branch’s control.