Judges Face Impeachment Threats and Bomb Threats Over Ruling Against Trump’s Agenda: NPR

Judges at the federal level who have opposed the Trump administration this year face a rising tide of threats, which raises concerns about their safety and the integrity of the judiciary.

Recently, the sister of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett received a bomb threat, and judges in lower courts, who have halted some of President Trump’s initiatives aimed at altering federal agencies and programs, have been targeted on social media.

Certain Republican lawmakers aligned with the president have suggested pursuing impeachment against several of these judges, who hold lifetime positions.

Elon Musk, who is in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency that is implementing reductions in federal agencies, has frequently expressed on social media a desire to impeach judges who obstruct or delay aspects of Trump’s agenda.

The campaign against the judiciary coincides with the Trump administration’s efforts to dismiss lawyers within the Justice Department and the Pentagon, impose penalties on private law firms that have represented clients opposed by Trump, and withdraw from involvement with the American Bar Association.

Judge Richard Sullivan from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit mentioned that in the past, four federal judges have lost their lives as a result of their judicial responsibilities.

“This is not abstract,” stated Sullivan, who chairs a panel on security within the Judicial Conference. “It’s tangible. It’s occurred in the past. We need to ensure that it doesn’t recur,” he added.

The Federal Judges Association, which consists of over 1,000 voluntary judges nationwide, emphasized that the judiciary is vital for maintaining democracy and lawfulness in society.

“Judges must carry out their duties devoid of threats of violence or undue pressure,” the association remarked in a statement provided to NPR.

Early threats

What is particularly alarming to legal analysts is that these assaults on judges are occurring at a very early phase of the judicial process—typically before the Supreme Court renders its final decisions.

“We have a legal system that allows for appeals,” noted Judge Jeffrey Sutton, chief judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. “This is generally how it functions. Impeachment should not be a means to bypass that process. Therefore, it is troubling if impeachment is being employed with that intent,” he added.

In the span of the last couple of centuries, only 15 federal judges have faced impeachment, primarily due to allegations of misconduct such as bribery, corruption, or perjury.

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, stated that the probability of a successful judicial impeachment is slim, and that removing a judge from office would require a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate.

“As individuals like Elon Musk publicly advocate for actions against judges merely for ruling against the federal government, we are normalizing what are fundamentally serious threats to judicial independence,” Vladeck warned.

“Jeopardize the Rule of Law”

Paul Grimm, a former federal judge with 26 years of experience, expressed that even the mere suggestion of impeachment can act as a form of intimidation.

“Attempting to intimidate judges, should that be your intent, undermines their constitutional responsibilities and threatens the rule of law,” Grimm stated, who currently heads the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School. “Without a solid rule of law, every freedom and right that we hold dear as Americans is at risk.”

Grimm also mentioned his serious concerns about online content that reveals the home and work addresses of judges and their adult offspring, deeming such actions as crossing a significant boundary.

Nearly five years ago, a disgruntled litigant murdered the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas in New Jersey.

This year, a state court judge in Maryland was killed in his driveway.

Attacks over rulings

According to the U.S. Marshals, threats against federal judges have surged by 100% in recent years, a trend that affects judges from both political parties.

Justice Barrett recently faced intense backlash from right-wing political commentators after casting her vote alongside Chief Justice John Roberts and the liberals against Trump’s move to suspend foreign aid.

Judges in lower courts have been subjected to online harassment for their initial rulings concerning Musk’s DOGE program, initiatives for restoring government web pages, and the suspension of foreign aid.

Though the Marshals provide protection to judges, they also answer to the U.S. Attorney General rather than the judicial system itself, which has raised alarms among certain Congressional members.

“A judge’s safety relies significantly on the Marshals Service, which the president appoints to safeguard them. If a president resents a ruling from a judge, in theory, they could revoke their protection,” stated Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, during a congressional hearing this month.

Earlier this year, the administration has already stripped protection from former military and national security officials who contradicted Trump during his first term.

Swalwell proposed that Congress should deliberate on establishing a security force dedicated to judges, independent of White House influence.