Federal judges who have ruled against the Trump administration are facing a surge of threats, endangering both their personal safety and the judiciary’s independence. The sister of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently received a bomb threat, while lower court judges who halted some of President Trump’s actions have been targeted on social media. Some Republican lawmakers have even proposed impeachment proceedings against these judges, with Elon Musk publicly advocating for the impeachment of judges obstructing Trump’s agenda.

These attacks on judges coincide with the administration’s efforts to dismiss lawyers within the Justice Department and Pentagon, penalize law firms representing disfavored clients, and distance itself from the American Bar Association. Judge Richard Sullivan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit highlighted the historical risks faced by federal judges, emphasizing the need to prevent such threats from materializing.

The Federal Judges Association, comprising over 1,000 judges, underscored the judiciary’s crucial role in upholding democracy and the rule of law. Legal experts are alarmed by the early targeting of judges, emphasizing the importance of due process and cautioning against using impeachment as a shortcut. While judicial impeachment is rare and challenging, the normalization of attacking judges for ruling against the government poses a significant threat to judicial independence.

Former federal judge Paul Grimm warned that intimidation tactics, including threats of impeachment, jeopardize the rule of law and undermine constitutional duties. The rise in threats against judges, coupled with online posts disclosing judges’ personal information, has raised concerns about escalating violence and intimidation within the judiciary. The U.S. Marshals have reported a doubling of threats against federal judges, necessitating a reevaluation of judicial security protocols to safeguard the judiciary’s integrity and independence.