Federal Judges Just Went On The Record About Life Under Siege

Earlier this week, NYU Law’s Rule of Law Lab and the Berkeley Judicial Institute released Threats to the Independence of the Federal Judiciary, a report built on interviews with 34 federal judges conducted between October 2025 and July 2026. It arrived alongside a companion Brennan Center report the same week in a rare, coordinated push to get judges to describe the job on the record. The top-line finding won’t shock anyone who’s watched the state of judicial safety devolved over the past few years: escalating threats, intimidation, harassment, and disinformation are straining the federal bench, and it’s starting to change how the job actually gets done.

But, as sad as it is, this is information that’s been known for a minute now. What’s noteworthy here is that judges, who almost never talk about this stuff, agreed to describe the environment on the record. Federal judges find themselves facing verbal attacks, falsehoods about the courts, and outright defiance of court orders. And the tactics are, by now, also grimly familiar. Swatting. Anonymous pizzas sent to judges’ homes as a way of saying we know where you live, some in the name of Judge Esther Salas’s murdered son. Specific death threats, like Judge Ana Reyes being told she should “eat a bullet” after an immigration ruling. And the Marshals Service tally keeps climbing — hundreds of threats against hundreds of judges — meanwhile the leaders of the DOJ call the victims “deranged” and “lunatics,” declare war on “rogue” judges, and, as Salas has pointed out, stay conspicuously silent about the threats themselves. Retired Judge Jeremy Fogel, who runs the Berkeley Judicial Institute and contributed to the report, put none too fine a point on the importance: judges and lawyers alike have “a direct stake in an independent judiciary and in the rule of law.”

The report’s central ask is that lawyers and bar associations, not the judges, who are constrained by their own ethics rules from mounting much of a defense, step up and publicly defend judicial independence. It’s a reasonable request and it’s also one the profession keeps flunking in real time. Just this week the Florida Bar couldn’t be bothered to open an investigation (even with 128 former judges, scholars, and prominent practitioners signing the complaint) when a DHS lawyer branded four sitting federal judges the “worst of the worst,” using the same language his agency reserves for murderers and rapists.

And the attacks on judges run alongside other affronts to the rule of law. There are vindictive prosecutions like the seashell indictment of James Comey on the laughable 86 47 theory, and resulting benchslaps. Recently, the DOJ told the Sixth Circuit to rewrite the vindictive-prosecution doctrine so a judge could almost never apply it. And the administration has been working hard since the start of Trump 2.0 to make sure the legal profession doesn’t utter a peep when things go south — what do you think the Biglaw executive orders were truly about? That nine of the country’s most powerful firms wrote checks — roughly $940 million in pro bono work steered toward Trump-approved causes — rather than defend themselves proves a good chunk of the bar has already failed in its obligation to the rule of law when the pressure is on.

When lawyers cave, the judges face the consequences.

Earlier: ‘I’ll Put A Bullet In Your Head’: The Disturbing Reality Of Being A Judge In America
‘The Silence Is Deafening’: Judge Esther Salas Blasts DOJ Over Threats Of Judicial Intimidation
Amy Coney Barrett Swatting Incident Tests Whether Anyone Cares About Threats To Judges Who Aren’t On SCOTUS
DHS General Counsel Names Four Federal Judges ‘Worst Of The Worst’ As Threats Against Judiciary Hit 564
An Administration Drowning In Vindictive Prosecution Motions Would Like To Abolish The Category

Earlier this week, NYU Law’s Rule of Law Lab and the Berkeley Judicial Institute released Threats to the Independence of the Federal Judiciary, a report built on interviews with 34 federal judges conducted between October 2025 and July 2026. It arrived alongside a companion Brennan Center report the same week in a rare, coordinated push to get judges to describe the job on the record. The top-line finding won’t shock anyone who’s watched the state of judicial safety devolved over the past few years: escalating threats, intimidation, harassment, and disinformation are straining the federal bench, and it’s starting to change how the job actually gets done.

But, as sad as it is, this is information that’s been known for a minute now. What’s noteworthy here is that judges, who almost never talk about this stuff, agreed to describe the environment on the record. Federal judges find themselves facing verbal attacks, falsehoods about the courts, and outright defiance of court orders. And the tactics are, by now, also grimly familiar. Swatting. Anonymous pizzas sent to judges’ homes as a way of saying we know where you live, some in the name of Judge Esther Salas’s murdered son. Specific death threats, like Judge Ana Reyes being told she should “eat a bullet” after an immigration ruling. And the Marshals Service tally keeps climbing — hundreds of threats against hundreds of judges — meanwhile the leaders of the DOJ call the victims “deranged” and “lunatics,” declare war on “rogue” judges, and, as Salas has pointed out, stay conspicuously silent about the threats themselves. Retired Judge Jeremy Fogel, who runs the Berkeley Judicial Institute and contributed to the report, put none too fine a point on the importance: judges and lawyers alike have “a direct stake in an independent judiciary and in the rule of law.”

The report’s central ask is that lawyers and bar associations, not the judges, who are constrained by their own ethics rules from mounting much of a defense, step up and publicly defend judicial independence. It’s a reasonable request and it’s also one the profession keeps flunking in real time. Just this week the Florida Bar couldn’t be bothered to open an investigation (even with 128 former judges, scholars, and prominent practitioners signing the complaint) when a DHS lawyer branded four sitting federal judges the “worst of the worst,” using the same language his agency reserves for murderers and rapists.

And the attacks on judges run alongside other affronts to the rule of law. There are vindictive prosecutions like the seashell indictment of James Comey on the laughable 86 47 theory, and resulting benchslaps. Recently, the DOJ told the Sixth Circuit to rewrite the vindictive-prosecution doctrine so a judge could almost never apply it. And the administration has been working hard since the start of Trump 2.0 to make sure the legal profession doesn’t utter a peep when things go south — what do you think the Biglaw executive orders were truly about? That nine of the country’s most powerful firms wrote checks — roughly $940 million in pro bono work steered toward Trump-approved causes — rather than defend themselves proves a good chunk of the bar has already failed in its obligation to the rule of law when the pressure is on.

When lawyers cave, the judges face the consequences.

Earlier: ‘I’ll Put A Bullet In Your Head’: The Disturbing Reality Of Being A Judge In America
‘The Silence Is Deafening’: Judge Esther Salas Blasts DOJ Over Threats Of Judicial Intimidation
Amy Coney Barrett Swatting Incident Tests Whether Anyone Cares About Threats To Judges Who Aren’t On SCOTUS
DHS General Counsel Names Four Federal Judges ‘Worst Of The Worst’ As Threats Against Judiciary Hit 564
An Administration Drowning In Vindictive Prosecution Motions Would Like To Abolish The Category

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Bluesky @Kathryn1