Targeting the Bench: The Real Effects of Attacking the Judiciary

Old gavel and court minutes displayed at the Minnesota Judicial Center. Courtesy of Jonathunder of Wikimedia Commons.

President Donald Trump frequently and publicly criticizes political opponents and various institutions. Whether it is the “Fake News” media, “Sleepy” or “Crooked Joe” Biden, a “weak and tired” Republican leadership, or even former professional soccer player Megan Rapinoe, who “should WIN before she TALKS,” his rhetoric has been widely noted in political discourse. Even former rivals who have largely stepped out of the political arena still find themselves on the receiving end of presidential digs. When Robert Mueller, former director of the FBI and special counsel who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election, passed away on March 20, 2026, President Trump, the day after, said, “Good. I’m glad he’s dead.”

Recently, the federal judiciary has become a prime target for White House criticism. When the Supreme Court ruled on February 20, 2026, that President Trump’s sweeping tariffs were illegal, the president responded with harsh condemnation. Calling the opinion “deeply disappointing,” President Trump emphasized the Democratic-leaning justices as a “disgrace to our nation.” The other justices who joined the majority were described as “fools and lap dogs,” who, the president claimed, are at the behest of the “radical left Democrats.” He also declared that the opinion was an “embarrassment to the families” of those in the majority.

Not even a month later, via Truth Social, President Trump continued his grievances with the nation’s highest court.

After expressing, “Our Country was unnecessarily RANSACKED by the United States Supreme Court,” the president directly attacked the institution, calling it “more than a weaponized and unjust Political Organization.” He added that the Court is “completely inept,” “embarrassing,” and “hurting our Country.” Toward the end, he also asserted that the Court had strayed from the Founders’ original intent.

While presidential attacks on the Supreme Court are notable, President Trump more frequently clashes with the rest of the federal judiciary. This stems from the fact that the 94 federal district courts hear and decide more cases than the Supreme Court. As such, federal judges receive relatively more backlash when they rule against the president. At the very least, these judges are the ones initially attacked if they rule against the administration. Although the president is a principal figure in this dynamic, the backlash can also come from members of the public—in many cases, his most ardent supporters. In some instances, this has escalated to direct threats.

In 2025, 400 federal judges were targets of serious threats, many of which included violence, a 78% increase in four years. These incidents can include scolding phone calls, death threats, or more elaborate acts, such as calling in bomb threats at judges’ households. Judge John Coughenour, a district court judge in Washington, is familiar with these scenarios; he once required round-the-clock protection after sentencing an al-Qaeda bomber to over 30 years in prison. In an interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes, Judge Coughenour said, “I have never encountered the hostility toward the judiciary that has existed in this country in the last year. And I don’t think it’s because we’re making bad decisions.” In one instance, Judge Coughenor reported that law enforcement arrived at his home after he blocked President Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship following a false report that he had murdered his wife.

Likewise, Judge Esther Salas, a district court judge in New Jersey, has faced similar targeting and has become a vocal advocate against dangerous rhetoric toward the judiciary. In 2021, her son, Daniel, was fatally shot inside their home by a disgruntled attorney. While the killing was not politically motivated, recently, Judge Salas received multiple unwanted pizza boxes under the name of her dead son. Judge Robert Lasnik, another district court judge in Washington, was also given a pizza delivery after speaking out about the intimidation of judges. Judge Lasnik told NPR that these are messages to convey fear. Explaining the intent, he said, “We know where you live, we know where your children live, and they could end up dead as Judge Salas’ son did.”

​However, the most prominent and frequently reported threats are the passionate voicemails judges receive after ruling against President Trump. In recordings obtained by CBS News, the comments were deeply troubling. After a judge ruled that the president cannot slash certain government benefits, one person called to yell, “I wish somebody would f—cking assassinate your ass,” while another person berated, “I double dare you to try and put charges on Donald J. Trump. You son of a bitch.” Other messages included murder, rape, and psychological torture.

Although some people defend harsh criticism of the courts, the consequences of heightened attacks on the judiciary affect real people and families. Even the nation’s most powerful justices are not immune to their effects. In late February 2026, Justice Clarence Thomas was scheduled to speak at an in-person session of a legal conference at American University. Due to a “security risk,” Justice Thomas switched to attending virtually. “I wanted to make sure I didn’t endanger anyone by my mere presence,” he said at the session.

Additionally, justices can face the same threats faced by district judges. In early March 2026, the home of one of Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s sisters was the target of a pipe bomb threat, which turned out to be a hoax. According to an email, the “bomb” was to be triggered “as soon as the mailbox” next opened. On the same day as this threat, the U.S. Marshals Service, which conducts judicial security, issued a bulletin regarding unwarranted pizza deliveries to federal judges’ homes. Among the recipients of these pizza orders were members of Justice Barrett’s immediate family.

Despite the influx of threats across the judiciary, some judges and justices still speak out against them. At a meeting of the Judicial Conference, the official policymaking body for the federal courts, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, an appellate judge, spoke about the true impact of threats, saying, “Criticism is no surprise; it’s part of the job…but when it gets to the level of a threat, it really is about attacking judicial independence.” When speaking about the president’s intention, Judge John Jones, a former district court judge in Pennsylvania, stated, “[President Trump] is attempting to delegitimize the federal courts.”

In a rare public remark, even Chief Justice John Roberts noted that “personally directed hostility is dangerous, and it’s got to stop.” He remained neutral in his comments, saying no “one political perspective” is responsible for this increase in threats.​

While insult politics are nothing new in American governance, President Trump and his defenders’ criticism of the judiciary is having significant, and often negative, consequences. Judges across the country have spoken out against this, and some even detailed the harrowing experiences they have faced for simply performing their constitutional duties. Nancy Gertner, a former district judge and current law professor at Harvard Law School, summarized her view of the issue by urging action. “These threats must be resisted with every lawful means at our disposal,” she wrote, “the survival of our democracy depends on it.”