Dr. Samuel B. Hoff is a George Washington Distinguished Professor Emeritus and an internship director at Delaware State University. He thanks his fall 2025 Supreme Court class for generating ideas used in this Opinion.
As if the disturbing trend wasn’t bad enough, Chief Justice John Roberts used his 2024 year-end report on the federal judiciary to highlight growing threats of violence against various court personnel, particularly judges. Then, Donald Trump was elected for a second term and took office in January, and the problem has only grown worse.
According to the U.S. Marshals Service, the number of cataloged threats against judges exceeded 500 cases for the second consecutive year as of September, an over 300% increase in such instances from 2019. The causes of this behavior are multifaceted but certainly are exacerbated by polarization in government, rhetoric against court rulings, declining support for institutions generally and inconsistent and inadequate funding to courts for security.
Of course, the latter is made only worse by the October government shutdown.
The types of threats vary, from deliveries of unordered food (doxxing) to making a false report causing an armed response (swatting) to online and social media targeting to actual attempts at homicide and arson.
By summer 2025, a plethora of important national groups were issuing statements calling for more action to protect those in the federal courts. Among these organizations were Principles First + Protect Democracy, the National Center for State Courts, the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the American Bar Association’s Litigation Section.
Compiling all the recommendations emanating from the aforementioned groups and elsewhere allows for an assessment and prioritization of alternatives. Among the suggestions for confronting threats against judicial personnel, the common starting place seems to be better personal protection for jurists, enhanced security at court buildings, augmented penalties for convictions in such cases and more public support of the courts in general.
On the other side, there is serious pressure coming from court critics, who believe the solutions include increasing oversight over a wayward judiciary or enacting radical reforms like padding the number of Supreme Court justices to ensure a friendly majority.
The federal courts have seen their share of support and scorn over the pantheon of American history. As an equal branch, the judiciary is just as entitled and vulnerable to either as the president and Congress are. However, when the other branches have more resources for basic protection and ignore the plethora of requests for help against threats, it’s past time to confront the menace.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
