Federal Judges Report Rising Threats Amid Trump Criticism

Objective Facts

Four federal judges spoke Thursday during an online forum about the threats they've received amid a growing hostility toward the judiciary. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes read email and social media death threats she received following her ruling blocking the Trump administration from ending temporary immigration protections for Haitians living in the United States, and U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee read messages that threatened to kill her at home, with one message leading to an indictment. The event was sponsored by Speak up for Justice, a nonpartisan group supporting an independent judiciary. Roberts' comments came two days after Trump called a federal judge who ruled against the administration "wacky, nasty, crooked and totally out of control." Serious threats to federal judges doubled between 2021 and 2024, according to the U.S. Marshals Service, the agency tasked with protecting federal judges and courthouses.

Left-Leaning Perspective

Left-leaning outlets report that judges attribute the rise in threats to increased public questioning and criticism, with the Trump administration and its allies routinely criticizing judges after adverse rulings. Some Republicans in Congress have called for the impeachment of certain judges because of their rulings, and Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia announced a task force aiming to "impeach rogue, activist judges." This rhetoric intensified after the Supreme Court struck down the Trump administration's emergency tariffs. The evidence cited includes Trump frequently calling judges lunatics, crooked, or Trump-hating, followed by waves of threats, with judges stating that people think they can make political gains by criticizing the federal judiciary. When Trump lost court battles on deportation and immigration crackdowns, he called judges a lunatic and monsters respectively, with such incendiary comments provoking a torrent of death threats. The narrative emphasizes that judges themselves note the connection between increased public criticism from high-ranking officials and the threats they face, with even a Republican-appointed judge noting "there's simply no evidence of" comparable behavior from Democrats. Left outlets omit analysis of threats from any other political source, focusing exclusively on right-wing threats.

Right-Leaning Perspective

The White House's official response states it was "deeply unserious" to suggest the administration's comments about judges could lead to threats, noting that as a "survivor of two assassination attempts, no one understands the dangers of political violence more than President Trump," while accusing the judiciary of "brazen defiance" with its "unlawful rulings." Conservative commentary argues that many of the actual threats against the judiciary have overwhelmingly come from the American left, citing Schumer's 2020 warning to justices they would "pay the price," left-wing activists protesting at conservative justices' homes, a left-wing assassination attempt on Kavanaugh, and pro-abortion activists targeting Barrett's church and children. The framing asserts that "the left openly embraces threats against conservative judges for the crime of acting like judges, the right criticizes leftist judges for acting like activists." Right-wing analysis contends that the greatest danger to judicial credibility isn't coming from right-wing critics but from the judiciary itself, claiming that when judges abandon proper jurisprudence to achieve partisan outcomes, people lose faith in the judiciary. Conservative outlets omit analysis of recent surge in threats targeting judges who ruled against Trump.

Deep Dive

The empirical reality is that serious threats to federal judges doubled between 2021 and 2024 according to the U.S. Marshals Service, with a similar pattern occurring at the state court level. The March 19 forum was unusual because judges mostly limit their comments to the courtroom and written decisions, yet such threats have become so routine against judges that more judges have recently begun talking about personal threats and attacks. The temporal correlation is significant: Trump's rhetoric intensified last month after the Supreme Court struck down the Trump administration's emergency tariffs, with Trump lashing out at his own appointees Justices Barrett and Neil Gorsuch immediately after that ruling. Both perspectives contain kernels of truth that each side largely omits. Left outlets are correct that the surge in threats targeting judges who ruled against Trump correlates temporally with Trump's public attacks on those specific judges by name. Often a wave of threats against those judges follows Trump's criticism. The CBS News reporting documenting the connection across 26 judges (9 Democratic appointees, 17 Republican appointees) shows the pattern extends beyond partisan judicial appointments. Right-leaning critics are correct that historically there have been left-wing threats and harassment of judges—Schumer's 2020 threats, the 2022 assassination attempt on Kavanaugh, and protests outside justices' homes during the Dobbs deliberations are documented facts. There has been a surge in left-wing threats, including ones targeting judges who've ruled for the president, and high-ranking Democrats have also verbally attacked judges, with Chuck Schumer later apologizing for telling two Supreme Court justices they would "pay the price." However, right-leaning outlets downplay or ignore that in fiscal 2025 there were 564 threats against judges, with 131 threats already occurring since fiscal 2026 began in October. The institutional question is whether judges speaking publicly about threats and institutional independence represents appropriate institutional defense or inappropriate politicization. The U.S. Judicial Conference issued an advisory opinion making clear that judges can speak in public about issues related to judicial security. This suggests judges' public forum had institutional authorization, though it remains unusual.

OBJ SPEAKING

← Daily BriefAbout

Federal Judges Report Rising Threats Amid Trump Criticism

Mar 19, 2026· Updated Mar 20, 2026
What's Going On

Four federal judges spoke Thursday during an online forum about the threats they've received amid a growing hostility toward the judiciary. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes read email and social media death threats she received following her ruling blocking the Trump administration from ending temporary immigration protections for Haitians living in the United States, and U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee read messages that threatened to kill her at home, with one message leading to an indictment. The event was sponsored by Speak up for Justice, a nonpartisan group supporting an independent judiciary. Roberts' comments came two days after Trump called a federal judge who ruled against the administration "wacky, nasty, crooked and totally out of control." Serious threats to federal judges doubled between 2021 and 2024, according to the U.S. Marshals Service, the agency tasked with protecting federal judges and courthouses.

Left says: The judges say that the rise in threats is partially a result of increased public questioning of judges and their decisions, with the Trump administration and its allies having routinely criticized judges after they issue adverse rulings. Left-leaning analysis highlights a barrage of violent threats from Trump's followers against judges who rule against him.
Right says: The White House spokesperson said the public has "always valued President Trump's ability to freely speak his mind" and that "the President will continue speaking with the same candor that the American people love to hear from him." Conservative commentary argues that many of the actual threats against the judiciary have overwhelmingly come from the American left, including Schumer's 2020 threats to justices, left-wing activists targeting conservative justices' homes, and a left-wing attempted assassination of Kavanaugh.
✓ Common Ground
Some voices across the spectrum acknowledge that criticism of judicial decisions is a normal part of democratic debate and that judges' rulings are legitimate targets for public scrutiny and legal challenge.
Both conservative and liberal commentators recognize that serious threats to federal judges have doubled between 2021 and 2024, representing a genuine security and institutional problem requiring attention.
Certain voices on both sides recognize that while political rhetoric can be sharp, there is a distinction between criticizing court decisions on legal grounds and making personal attacks or threats against individual judges.
Several commentators across the political spectrum acknowledge that threats against judges who rule in favor of one side or the other have occurred historically, though they dispute which direction represents a greater current threat.
Both left and right acknowledge that judicial independence is important to the rule of law, though they differ sharply on whether current attacks on judges undermine or are justified by concerns about judicial overreach.
Objective Deep Dive

The empirical reality is that serious threats to federal judges doubled between 2021 and 2024 according to the U.S. Marshals Service, with a similar pattern occurring at the state court level. The March 19 forum was unusual because judges mostly limit their comments to the courtroom and written decisions, yet such threats have become so routine against judges that more judges have recently begun talking about personal threats and attacks. The temporal correlation is significant: Trump's rhetoric intensified last month after the Supreme Court struck down the Trump administration's emergency tariffs, with Trump lashing out at his own appointees Justices Barrett and Neil Gorsuch immediately after that ruling.

Both perspectives contain kernels of truth that each side largely omits. Left outlets are correct that the surge in threats targeting judges who ruled against Trump correlates temporally with Trump's public attacks on those specific judges by name. Often a wave of threats against those judges follows Trump's criticism. The CBS News reporting documenting the connection across 26 judges (9 Democratic appointees, 17 Republican appointees) shows the pattern extends beyond partisan judicial appointments.

Right-leaning critics are correct that historically there have been left-wing threats and harassment of judges—Schumer's 2020 threats, the 2022 assassination attempt on Kavanaugh, and protests outside justices' homes during the Dobbs deliberations are documented facts. There has been a surge in left-wing threats, including ones targeting judges who've ruled for the president, and high-ranking Democrats have also verbally attacked judges, with Chuck Schumer later apologizing for telling two Supreme Court justices they would "pay the price." However, right-leaning outlets downplay or ignore that in fiscal 2025 there were 564 threats against judges, with 131 threats already occurring since fiscal 2026 began in October.

The institutional question is whether judges speaking publicly about threats and institutional independence represents appropriate institutional defense or inappropriate politicization. The U.S. Judicial Conference issued an advisory opinion making clear that judges can speak in public about issues related to judicial security. This suggests judges' public forum had institutional authorization, though it remains unusual.

◈ Tone Comparison

Left-leaning outlets employ language suggesting causation and urgency ("incendiary," "barrage," "unprecedented spike"), while right-leaning commentary uses deflection and counter-blame ("deeply unserious," "greatest danger," "missing the forest for the trees"). Left uses specific recent examples to build a narrative of escalating Trump-driven threats; right uses historical examples to suggest partisan patterns and questions the judges' motives for speaking publicly.

✕ Key Disagreements
Whether Trump's personal criticism of judges directly causes or significantly contributes to violent threats against them
Left: Left argues there is a direct causal link between Trump's inflammatory language (calling judges "wacky, nasty, crooked") and subsequent surges in death threats and threats of violence targeting those judges.
Right: Right argues the connection is speculative and "deeply unserious," pointing instead to historical left-wing threats and arguing that Trump's criticism targets judicial overreach rather than encouraging violence.
Which political side is primarily responsible for recent threats and harassment of federal judges
Left: Left documents and emphasizes that the overwhelming recent surge in threats has targeted judges who ruled against Trump, correlating with his attacks on them, with Republican calls for impeachment amplifying the rhetoric.
Right: Right points to past left-wing threats (Schumer's 2020 comments, assassination attempt on Kavanaugh, protests at justices' homes) and argues the left "openly embraces" threats against conservative judges, suggesting balanced responsibility.
Whether judicial criticism from the administration is legitimate policy disagreement or an inappropriate attack on institutional independence
Left: Left frames Trump's rhetoric as threatening judicial independence and the rule of law by personalizing attacks rather than engaging substantively with legal reasoning.
Right: Right argues Trump is legitimately criticizing what they view as activist judges blocking lawful policy, not attacking the judiciary as an institution but rather specific judges acting beyond their authority.
The proper institutional response from Chief Justice Roberts and the judiciary to Trump's criticism
Left: Left supports Roberts' warnings as appropriate defense of judicial independence, with judges feeling obligated to speak up about threats.
Right: Right views Roberts' "both-sides" framing as misguided, arguing he is conflating legitimate criticism of activist judges with actual threats and missing that the judiciary itself bears responsibility for its credibility crisis.