This has been a difficult period for the federal judiciary in the United States. For this reason, a statement has been issued by FJA President Michelle Childs, which calls for thoughtful discussion and reflection.
“Recent events are a clear and urgent reminder that a significant percentage of the citizenry of the United States does not realize or understand that the U.S. Constitution establishes the judicial branch to interpret the law. Federal judges play a crucial role in upholding our democracy as guardians of the rule of law. Our courtroom decisions speak for us—we do not speak publicly about our decisions. Yet, the judiciary faces growing threats, including violence, intimidation, disinformation, and unprecedented impeachments that challenge its independence. These concerns underscore the importance of our collective efforts as Federal Judges Association (FJA) members to protect judicial security, promote public understanding of the judiciary, and reinforce the integrity of our courts.
As we continue this work, the FJA would like to commend Chief Justice John Roberts for the serious reflections in his powerful 2024 year-end report related to the physical safety of judges. In his report, the Chief Justice reminds us that there should be no place for violence directed at judges for doing their job. Irresponsible rhetoric shrouded in disinformation undermines the public’s confidence that our justice system can fulfill its duties. By deliberately seeking to discredit our justice system, His Honor warned that violence, intimidation, disinformation, and defiance of court orders threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends.
In the history of our Republic, as the Chief Justice notably mentioned in his report, there has always been tension between the branches of the government and criticism of judicial interpretations. The FJA and our members should strive to ensure that accurate information is shared with the American citizenry regarding the role of the judiciary: to impartially interpret the laws of the land created by the U.S. Congress and enforcement of the law by the Executive Branch. Specific decisions handed down by judges are not formed from individual opinions but are prepared against evaluation of what the “laws on the books” require.
However, in recent times, too many public voices have chosen not to engage in “informed criticism,” effectively blurring public understanding of the factional basis used to guide judicial decision-making. Sadly, we know that such illegitimate activity has undoubtedly led to the uptick in identified threats at all levels of the judiciary. In recent years, threats and violence directed at the judiciary have led to the killing of several judges and their close relatives. These targeted attacks by disgruntled litigants and others following adverse rulings by judicial officers highlight the vulnerability of judges who exercise their ordinary judicial duties.
The security of federal judges and all those serving in the judiciary is fundamental to their ability to uphold the rule of law and fulfill their constitutional duty without fear or undue influence. A judiciary that operates under the threats of violence, intimidation, or impeachment risks the erosion of its independence, a cornerstone of our democracy and our Constitution. Ensuring judicial security is not just about protecting individuals; it is about preserving the integrity of our legal system and the public’s trust in an impartial judiciary.
In his report, the Chief Justice noted that public officials, too, regrettably have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges—for example, some have suggested political bias in the judges’ adverse rulings without a credible basis for such allegations. Within the past year, we have also seen the need for state and federal bar associations to come to the defense of judges whose decisions in prominent cases prompted elected officials to call for their impeachment. Attempts to intimidate judges for their legal rulings in cases should be vigorously opposed. Public officials have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they must fully understand the three branches of federal government that have ensured the sustainability of that democracy.
Disinformation, even if disconnected from any direct attempt to intimidate, also threatens judicial independence. At its most basic level, distortion of the factual or legal bases for legal rulings can undermine confidence in the court system. The judicial branch is ill-suited to combat this problem because judges speak only through their decisions and do not call press conferences or issue rebuttals. The modern disinformation problem is magnified by social media platforms, which provide readily accessible channels to instantly spread rumors and false information.
The FJA recognizes the challenges facing our members and the entire Judicial system. We strongly supported the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, which will protect judges’ personally identifiable information. We are also asking our members and the legal community to engage in civic education efforts to help the public and decision-makers understand the judiciary’s critical role in our democracy. While we are unable to discuss specific cases, we should strive to lift up the importance of our judicial process, which includes anyone’s constitutional right to challenge a ruling.
The FJA would like to thank Chief Justice Roberts for his leadership at this time in our Nation’s history. Leadership takes courage, and we are very grateful for the leadership of the many federal and state legislators who stepped forward to sponsor bills aimed at protecting judicial officers in the past. Our system of justice and economic strength depends on the rule of law. Continued violence, intimidation, and defiance directed at judges simply because they are fulfilling their sworn judicial duties only serves to undermine our Republic, jeopardize the inheritance from our founding generation, and risk the collapse of the rule of law.”
