The Judiciary Under Attack: A Call for Respect and Protection
In an unprecedented move, two senior federal judges appointed by Republican presidents have spoken out against the mounting threats of violence and impeachment faced by members of the judiciary. Judge Richard Sullivan, appointed by President Donald Trump to the federal appeals court in New York, and Judge Jeffrey Sutton, appointed by President George W. Bush to the federal appeals court in Cincinnati, Ohio, expressed their concerns during a call with reporters following a meeting of the Judicial Conference, the governing body of the judiciary. Both judges emphasized that threats against judges are not just personal attacks but also undermine the very foundation of constitutional government. “Threats against judges are threats against constitutional government. Everyone should be taking this seriously,” Sullivan remarked.
The Rise of Political Attacks on the Judiciary
The judges’ comments come amid a backdrop of increasing hostility toward the judiciary from high-profile figures, including billionaire Elon Musk and allies of former President Donald Trump. These individuals have routinely criticized judges who have ruled against Trump’s agenda, often resorting to personal attacks and even threats of impeachment. The Federal Judges Association, the largest organization representing federal judges, has also issued a rare public statement condemning what it described as “irresponsible rhetoric shrouded in disinformation” aimed at eroding public confidence in the judiciary. While neither Sullivan nor Sutton explicitly named Musk or Trump, their remarks clearly addressed the broader trend of political attacks on the judiciary.
Safety Concerns and the Need for Enhanced Security
During the closed-door meeting of the Judicial Conference, security for judges both in courthouses and at their homes was a key topic of discussion. Sullivan and Sutton highlighted the growing threats faced by judges and called for increased measures to protect them. However, they noted that Congress has not provided sufficient funding for judicial security in recent years. Sullivan pointed out that funding has been “flat” for the past two years, which he said is inadequate given the rising challenges and the need to keep up with inflation. The lack of resources has left the judiciary struggling to address the escalating threats effectively.
The Dangerous Consequences of Threats and Intimidation
Judge Sutton, who has served on the bench for over two decades, emphasized that while criticism of judicial decisions is a natural part of the job, threats cross a dangerous line. “We allocate disappointment to half the people that come before us. Criticism is no surprise as part of the job. But I do think when it gets to the level of a threat, it really is about attacking judicial independence. And that’s just not good for the system or the country,” Sutton said. He and Sullivan both stressed that threats against judges have been on the rise for years, creating a hostile environment that could undermine the integrity of the judicial system. Chief Justice John Roberts, in his year-end report, also highlighted the dangers of intimidation, disinformation, and the defiance of court orders by public officials, which he said pose a significant threat to judicial independence.
The Impeachment Threat and the Erosion of Judicial Process
Sullivan also addressed the growing talk of impeachment as a tool to short-circuit the judicial process. He noted that the U.S. legal system provides multiple avenues for litigants to challenge rulings, from trial courts to the Supreme Court. “Impeachment is not, it shouldn’t be a short-circuiting of that process. And so it is concerning if impeachment is used in a way that is designed to do just that,” he said. This sentiment reflects a broader concern among judges and legal experts that the threat of impeachment is being wielded as a political weapon to exert pressure on the judiciary, rather than as a legitimate constitutional mechanism for addressing misconduct. Such practices, Sullivan and Sutton argued, could undermine the independence of the judiciary and erode public trust in the courts.
Conclusion: Upholding Judicial Independence in a Divided Era
The statements by Sullivan and Sutton serve as a powerful reminder of the critical role that an independent judiciary plays in maintaining the rule of law and protecting democratic institutions. As political polarization continues to deepen, the need to safeguard judicial independence has never been more urgent. Both judges called on lawmakers and the public to take these threats seriously and to provide the necessary resources to protect judges and the judicial system. Their warning is clear: attacks on the judiciary are not just attacks on individual judges but on the very fabric of constitutional government. In a democracy, the judiciary must remain a neutral and impartial arbiter of the law, free from coercion and intimidation. The stakes could not be higher.
