By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Faced with escalating threats and intimidation, numerous federal judges have adapted their lives, often spurred by rulings against the Trump administration and subsequent harsh criticism. These judges report increased harassment, including swatting, bomb threats, and unsolicited pizza deliveries, some of which are suspected to be linked to foreign actors aiming to destabilize the judiciary. To combat the threats, judges have enhanced home security, altered routines, and limited the online presence of their families. Despite these efforts, some judges remain concerned about the impact on their safety, as well as the broader implications for the rule of law and the willingness of future generations to serve as judges.
Read the original article here
Judges who ruled against Trump say harassment and threats have changed their lives, and the core of the issue boils down to the simple act of doing their job. They made decisions based on law and precedent, but that seemingly innocuous act triggered a wave of hostility. These weren’t just disagreements; these were targeted attacks designed to intimidate and silence.
Imagine being a judge, tasked with upholding the law, and suddenly finding your home targeted, as in the case of the judge whose house was burned down. That’s a stark example of the reality these judges now face. They’re not just dealing with the normal pressures of the job; they’re navigating a minefield of threats and intimidation aimed at silencing them or at the very least influencing their rulings.
The rhetoric surrounding these judges often casts them as enemies, rather than public servants. This is a common tactic to demonize those who stand in the way. It’s a way to dehumanize them, to make it easier for people to condone, or even encourage, harassment. The fact that judges need to consider their personal safety because of their work is a sign of serious issues. This goes beyond mere political disagreement; it strikes at the heart of the judicial system and the very foundations of democracy.
The attacks aren’t just verbal; they’re also physical and psychological. Threats of violence, doxxing (releasing personal information online), and other forms of harassment create a climate of fear. This can change the way judges approach their work, potentially leading to self-censorship or a reluctance to rule against certain individuals or groups. This has a chilling effect on the judiciary.
It’s tempting to dismiss this as just the price of doing business in a highly polarized world. But that would be a profound mistake. The threats and harassment directed at these judges is not about politics. It’s about power and control. It’s an attempt to undermine the rule of law and replace it with the whims of a vocal minority.
The focus here is not whether the judges were right or wrong in their rulings. The focus is the environment of threats and intimidation. It’s about the erosion of norms and the normalization of behavior that was once considered beyond the pale. The safety of judges, just like the safety of anyone else, should not be a political football.
This creates a chilling effect not just on the judges themselves, but on the entire legal system. Potential appointees may be deterred, making it harder to fill judicial vacancies with qualified individuals. If judges feel unsafe, it becomes far more difficult to attract people to fill the position. It undermines the independence of the judiciary, which is a cornerstone of any democracy.
The situation also raises questions about the role of law enforcement and government officials. What are they doing to protect these judges? Are they taking these threats seriously? Are the perpetrators being held accountable? The answers to these questions are critical. It would be important for law enforcement to respond adequately to these threats and investigate and prosecute those responsible.
The narrative often spun by those behind the harassment is that they are simply expressing their opinions. But there’s a massive difference between expressing an opinion and actively trying to intimidate someone into silence. These are two completely different things, and it is a crucial distinction.
This is why this isn’t just a legal issue. It’s a societal one. It challenges our shared commitment to the rule of law and to the idea that everyone, regardless of their position, deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. It’s a reminder that democracy is fragile and requires constant vigilance.
It’s time to recognize the pattern and call it what it is: an assault on the justice system. The harassment and threats faced by these judges must be condemned by all sides, and those responsible must be held accountable. Only then can we hope to restore faith in the system and protect the integrity of the judicial branch.