Several interviewees, including six sitting judges, observed that threats against federal judges intensified after the start of the second Trump term, especially as the courts have repeatedly been asked to place legal limits on expansive policy changes and assertions of executive power. All but three of the sitting judges expressed concern for their families’ safety due to the intensification of threats and emphasized the effects of these threats on their daily lives.
For example, one judge who adjudicated high-profile executive branch cases reported being the target of several pizza-doxing incidents — a trend in which antagonists have unsolicited pizzas delivered to judges’ homes to signal that their address is known and that they are being watched. In another incident, pizzas were anonymously sent to the children and siblings of a judge who ruled against the Trump administration.
Another judge reported receiving more than 700 threats directed to their chambers and said that their home floor plan was posted online. The judge whose relatives faced pizza-doxing incidents also reported receiving a high volume of hate mail and calls to their chambers, which required them to enlist full-time U.S. Marshals Service protection at home. Some judges reported instructing their children not to play outside due to safety concerns and barred them from using social media.
Ultimately, the ramifications of these threats go beyond the potential harm to any one individual. Several judges expressed fear that the personal cost of serving as a federal judge would start to eclipse the importance of the role itself. Under that scenario, qualified candidates may be deterred from seeking judicial office, and more judges may leave the bench prematurely, impacting the public’s access to justice.
Judges also continue to be subjected to false and inflammatory rhetoric that risks instigating threatening behavior.
In July, for example, James Percival, the Department of Homeland Security’s general counsel, published a “Worst of the Worst” list on his official X account, targeting judges who issued unfavorable rulings against the Trump administration. Judge Paula Xinis — who ordered the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man wrongfully removed from the United States and deported to an infamous prison in El Salvador — made the list, as did three other judges who ruled against the Trump administration on immigration matters. In response to the list, 128 retired federal and state judges filed an ethics complaint against Percival with the Florida bar, maintaining that such statements not only “attack the foundation and legitimacy of the judiciary as a whole, but they could incite violent threats.”
Lower court judges, in particular, are on the front lines, hearing cases that affect fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and due process. Their duty is to serve as a bulwark when the government violates these rights, regardless of the power, wealth, or citizenship status of the individuals or the people whom they worship, protest, or learn with. Efforts to intimidate, harass, or threaten judges and thwart their independence put Americans at risk of losing critical protections against government abuses, as has occurred at times during the administration’s ongoing mass deportation efforts.
While criticism of the judiciary is a core tenet of a healthy democracy, there is a clear distinction between criticizing judges and judicial decisions and instigating or participating in conduct such as doxing or making baseless claims of bias or corruption that endangers or intimidates judges. This kind of rhetoric ultimately puts individual rights at risk, particularly those of vulnerable communities, by targeting judicial independence.
Despite the ongoing risks and strain they face, the federal judges interviewed by the Brennan Center were firm in their belief that judges across the country continue to rule with impartiality, integrity, and courage. As one district judge noted, “We are still doing our jobs without fear or favor.”
The country needs to stand behind the judiciary at this moment of unprecedented threats. That means uplifting the importance of courts’ work, speaking out when judges are targeted with inappropriate rhetoric that can lead to threats, and demanding adequate funding and security infrastructure that allows judges to do their jobs safely.
