NYU Law/Berkeley: Threats to Federal Judiciary Report Details Judge Harassment

• A new "Threats to Federal Judiciary report" details escalating threats, intimidation, and disinformation against federal judges.
• The report, from NYU Law’s Rule of Law Lab and the Berkeley Judicial Institute, is based on interviews with 34 federal judges conducted between October 2025 and July 2026.
• Specific threats include swatting, anonymous pizzas referencing Judge Salas's son, and death threats like one against Judge Ana Reyes.
• The report urges lawyers and bar associations to publicly defend judicial independence, as judges are ethically constrained from doing so themselves.
• An example cited is the Florida Bar's failure to investigate a DHS lawyer who called federal judges "worst of the worst," despite a complaint signed by 128 legal professionals.

It is incumbent upon lawyers and bar associations to step forward and publicly defend judicial independence.

A new "Threats to Federal Judiciary report," released earlier this week by NYU Law’s Rule of Law Lab and the Berkeley Judicial Institute, paints a stark picture of the challenges facing federal judges across the United States. This comprehensive report, titled "Threats to the Independence of the Federal Judiciary," is based on in-depth interviews with 34 federal judges conducted between October 2025 and July 2026. Its release coincided with a companion Brennan Center judicial threats report, part of a coordinated effort to document the pressures on the judiciary. The primary finding confirms a concerning trend: escalating threats, intimidation, harassment, and the spread of disinformation are severely straining the federal bench, fundamentally altering how judicial duties are performed.

Judges are increasingly subjected to verbal assaults, the dissemination of falsehoods about court proceedings, and outright defiance of court orders. The report details various alarming tactics, including "swatting" incidents and anonymous pizzas delivered to judges' homes, some explicitly referencing Judge Esther Salas’s murdered son. Specific death threats are also highlighted, such as Judge Ana Reyes being told she should "eat a bullet" following an immigration ruling. The U.S. Marshals Service continues to record a rising number of threats, with hundreds of incidents targeting hundreds of judges. Compounding these federal judge safety concerns, leaders within the Department of Justice have reportedly dismissed victims as "deranged" and "lunatics," declared war on "rogue" judges, and, as Judge Salas has pointed out, remained notably silent regarding the threats themselves.

The gravity of these judicial independence threats US extends beyond individual safety, impacting the very foundation of the rule of law. A central theme of the NYU Law Rule of Law Lab report and the Berkeley Judicial Institute report is the unique position of judges, who are ethically constrained from publicly defending themselves or the judiciary against such attacks. This ethical limitation places a significant burden on other legal professionals to act as guardians of the system. Retired Judge Jeremy Fogel, who directs the Berkeley Judicial Institute and contributed to the report, underscored this shared responsibility, stating that both judges and lawyers possess "a direct stake in an independent judiciary and in the rule of law."

The report issues a clear and urgent appeal: it is incumbent upon lawyers and bar associations to step forward and publicly defend judicial independence. This call to action recognizes that while judges are bound by rules that limit their public engagement on these matters, the legal community as a whole has a professional and ethical obligation to protect the integrity and autonomy of the courts. Without active advocacy from legal professionals, the escalating pressures risk undermining the judiciary's ability to function impartially and effectively, thereby jeopardizing the impartial administration of justice.

Despite the clear need for external defense, the report suggests that the legal profession has often fallen short in fulfilling this crucial duty. A recent example illustrates this reluctance: the Florida Bar declined to open an investigation when a Department of Homeland Security lawyer publicly labeled four sitting federal judges as the "worst of the worst," using terminology typically reserved by his agency for violent criminals like murderers and rapists. This inaction occurred despite a formal complaint signed by 128 former judges, legal scholars, and prominent practitioners, highlighting a missed opportunity for lawyers to defend judicial independence.

This incident, among others, underscores the report's central message: the legal community must actively engage in safeguarding the judiciary. The ethical constraints on judges mean that the responsibility to counter disinformation, challenge threats, and uphold the courts' standing falls squarely on the shoulders of lawyers and their professional organizations. By failing to address such attacks, the profession risks tacitly endorsing behaviors that erode public trust and endanger the independence essential for a functioning justice system.

This report highlights a critical professional responsibility for lawyers and bar associations to actively defend judicial independence against escalating threats, as judges are ethically constrained from doing so themselves. Legal professionals should be aware of this call to action and consider their role in upholding the rule of law and protecting the judiciary.

Source: Original reporting via source material.