Across the United States, the federal judiciary — long regarded as a bulwark of impartial governance — finds itself navigating a climate of fear without modern precedent. Judges appointed by presidents of both parties report that threats to their safety and that of their families have escalated sharply, driven not by the grievances of individual litigants but by the currents of national political polarization. With security incidents rising 57 percent in a single year and the administration itself prosecuting a sitting judge, the question being asked in courtrooms and chambers alike is whether
US judges face unprecedented threats as Trump cases escalate security fears
Federal judges and their families face direct threats including 700+ harassing calls, home address doxxing, and intimidation tactics; some judges report living under round-the-clock protection.
If this gets too bad, I'm going to stop.
Mark
So a judge got 700 threatening calls. That's a number I can picture, but what does that actually mean for how they work?
Mimi
It means their child's school started running active shooter drills. It means they built a safe room in their house. It means they're not just worried about themselves—they're reorganizing their family's life around the threat.
Luke
But we should be clear: is this one judge, or is this widespread? The report interviewed 35 judges total.
Mimi
Every single one of them said threats are worse now than ever before. The Marshals Service saw a 57 percent jump in security incidents in 2025.
Mark
Why now? Trump was president before.
Mimi
The judges identified three things: the political climate has shifted—threats used to come from people angry about their own cases, now they come from people enraged by politics. There are over 850 lawsuits against the administration. And judges themselves are being prosecuted.
Luke
On that last point—Judge Hannah Dugan was convicted of obstructing an immigration arrest. That's a real legal charge, not just the administration coming after her.
Mimi
True. But a sitting appellate judge called it weaponization of federal law enforcement. The perception matters as much as the fact.
Mark
Do judges think this is actually changing their decisions?
Mimi
They said no—not yet. But many worry it will. One anonymous judge said if it gets worse, they'll quit.
Luke
And that's the real risk, isn't it? Not that judges are ruling differently now, but that good judges will leave, and good people won't take the job.
Mimi
Exactly. And the judges noted it's hitting women and judges of color harder. So if people leave, the bench gets whiter and more male.
Mark
Is there any sense of what comes next?
Luke
The Marshals Service expects the numbers to keep rising in 2026. But they wouldn't give the actual figures to the ABC.
Mimi
Which itself is telling.
El Pulso
- A Florida federal judge received over 700 threatening calls after ruling on immigration cases — their child's school ran active shooter drills, and the family built a safe room after their home floor plan was posted online.
- Antagonists are deploying calculated intimidation tactics like 'pizza doxxing' — sending unsolicited deliveries to judges' homes under the name of a murdered law clerk, signaling surveillance and menace without a single explicit threat.
- More than 850 lawsuits against the Trump administration have flooded federal dockets, making judges who rule on these cases targets of partisan fury and, judges warn, potential retaliation from the executive branch itself.
- The prosecution and conviction of Judge Hannah Dugan has sent a chilling signal through the judiciary — sitting appellate judges describe it as the administration weaponizing federal law enforcement to pressure the bench into compliance.
- Women judges and judges of color report facing substantially more intense harassment than their white male counterparts, raising fears that sustained threats will accelerate retirements and deter diverse candidates from accepting appointments.
- The U.S. Marshals Service forecasts security incidents will rise again in 2026, and judges themselves warn that if the cost of service grows too great, qualified jurists will simply walk away from the bench.
Across the United States, the federal judiciary — long regarded as a bulwark of impartial governance — finds itself navigating a climate of fear without modern precedent. Judges appointed by presidents of both parties report that threats to their safety and that of their families have escalated sharply, driven not by the grievances of individual litigants but by the currents of national political polarization. With security incidents rising 57 percent in a single year and the administration itself prosecuting a sitting judge, the question being asked in courtrooms and chambers alike is whether the independence of the third branch of government can endure the weight being placed upon it.
A federal judge in Florida received more than 700 threatening phone calls after presiding over an immigration case tied to the Trump administration. The calls were relentless enough that the judge's child's school intensified active shooter drills. When the family's home floor plan appeared online, they built a safe room and rehearsed responses to potential intruders. This is no longer an isolated incident.
A new Brennan Center for Justice report, drawing on interviews with 35 sitting and retired federal judges appointed across party lines and decades, found that every single judge interviewed said the danger they face today surpasses anything in their prior experience. The U.S. Marshals Service recorded a 57 percent increase in significant security incidents during fiscal year 2025 and expects the number to rise again in 2026. Some judges have paid thousands of dollars out of pocket for additional family protection. One described the cumulative effect simply: 'You stop doing things.'
The threats have grown more calculated. A tactic documented in 2025 involves ordering unsolicited pizzas to judges' homes — deliveries placed under the name of a law clerk murdered in 2005 during an assassination attempt on his mother, a sitting federal judge. The gesture is designed to communicate surveillance. Nearly all 17 sitting judges interviewed expressed serious concern for their families, even as Judge Beth Bloom of the Southern District of Florida acknowledged the terms of public service: 'We sign up for this.'
Judges identified three converging pressures. The first is political polarization — threats now come predominantly from people enraged by politics rather than by their own case outcomes, a shift the former director of the U.S. Marshals Service noted publicly in 2024. The second is the sheer volume of litigation: more than 850 lawsuits have been filed against the second Trump administration, flooding dockets with cases that attract intense partisan scrutiny. Judges identified cases involving administration actions as posing the greatest personal risk. The third is the visible prosecution of judges themselves. The conviction of Judge Hannah Dugan — found guilty of obstructing an immigration arrest and fined $5,000 — was characterized by a sitting appellate judge as the administration weaponizing federal law enforcement against the judiciary.
Though nearly every judge interviewed said threats had not yet changed their rulings, many worried that future jurists would not accept the associated risks. The concern is compounded by a troubling pattern: women judges and judges of color reported experiencing substantially more intense harassment than their white male counterparts. If experienced judges retire early and qualified candidates decline appointment out of fear, the bench stands to become less diverse precisely when diversity matters most. What remains unresolved is whether the judiciary can sustain its independence under sustained political pressure — or whether the cost of service will simply become too high for those most needed to bear it.
A federal judge in Florida received more than 700 threatening phone calls after presiding over a case involving the Trump administration's immigration enforcement. The calls were so persistent that the judge's child's school intensified active shooter drills. When the judge's home floor plan appeared online, the family built a safe room and practiced responses to potential intruders. This is no longer an outlier.
Threats against federal judges have reached levels without precedent in the modern era, according to a new report by the Brennan Center for Justice based on interviews with 35 sitting and retired judges appointed across decades and party lines. Every single judge interviewed—whether they served under Republican or Democratic administrations—said the danger they face today exceeds anything they have experienced before. The U.S. Marshals Service, which provides security for federal judges, recorded a 57 percent jump in significant security incidents during the 2025 fiscal year. The agency expects that number to climb again in 2026, though it declined to release specific figures when asked.
The threats take forms both crude and calculated. One emerging tactic, documented by Reuters in 2025, involves ordering unsolicited pizzas delivered to judges' homes—a practice known as "pizza doxxing." The deliveries signal that antagonists know where the judges live and are watching. Disturbingly, many of these pizzas arrive under the name Daniel Anderl, a law clerk murdered in 2005 during an assassination attempt on his mother, New Jersey District Judge Esther Salas. Some judges have paid thousands of dollars out of their own pockets for additional security for their families. One district judge who lived under round-the-clock federal protection for months described how the experience changed daily life: "You stop doing things."
Nearly all 17 sitting judges interviewed for the report expressed serious concern about their family members' safety. Judge Beth Bloom of the Southern District of Florida, speaking for the report, acknowledged the weight of the position: "We sign up for this. We are public servants." Yet the judges identified three converging factors driving the escalation. They pointed to the political climate as the primary driver—a shift from past decades when threats typically came from individuals angry about their own case outcomes. Now, judges said, many threats originate from people enraged by politics. The former director of the U.S. Marshals Service made this observation public in 2024, noting the fundamental change in the nature of judicial threats.
The second factor is the sheer volume of litigation challenging Trump administration policies. More than 850 lawsuits have been filed against the second Trump administration, flooding the docket with cases that attract intense public attention and partisan scrutiny. When asked which cases posed the greatest risk, the majority of sitting judges pointed directly to those involving Trump administration actions. A sitting district judge explained the pressure: "People are aware the administration is going to use whatever potential tools it can to come down on judges and try to whip judges into line."
The third factor is the visible prosecution of judges themselves. In December, Judge Hannah Dugan was found guilty of obstructing an immigration arrest outside her courtroom and sentenced to pay a $5,000 fine. A sitting appellate judge characterized her arrest as evidence that the Trump administration was weaponizing federal law enforcement against the judiciary. Another district judge acknowledged feeling pressure to rule in particular directions. Though nearly every judge interviewed said threats had not yet altered their decisions, many worried that future judges would not accept the associated risks.
The threat to judicial independence runs deeper than any single ruling. A retired judge said the escalating incidents confirmed their decision to leave the bench: "I don't want to live that way." An anonymous sitting judge expressed shock at the situation: "It never occurred to me that this was something we'd be facing. If this gets too bad, I'm going to stop." Several jurists flagged a particular concern: judges from underrepresented backgrounds—women and judges of color—reported experiencing more intense harassment and vitriol than their white male counterparts. One male judge noted he had spoken with women and Black judges who described the hostility directed at them as substantially greater. If experienced judges retire and qualified candidates decline appointment out of fear, the bench will likely become less diverse, not more.
The U.S. Marshals Service recorded a 10 percent increase in threats during protective investigations in 2025 and forecasts further rises ahead. What remains uncertain is whether the judiciary can sustain its independence under sustained political pressure, or whether the cost of service will simply become too high.
Citas Notables
We sign up for this. We are public servants.— Judge Beth Bloom, Southern District of Florida
People are aware the administration is going to use whatever potential tools it can to come down on judges and try to whip judges into line.— A sitting district judge interviewed for the report
Quieres la nota completa?
Lee el original en ABC News & Headlines – Australian Broadcasting Corporation ↗