In Washington, two prominent federal judges, each appointed during Republican presidencies, have expressed grave concerns about threats aimed at their fellow judiciary members. Judge Richard Sullivan, who was appointed by President Donald Trump to the federal appeals court in New York, emphasized that such threats undermine the very foundation of constitutional government, urging everyone to recognize the seriousness of these developments.
Recent criticism has come from millionaire Elon Musk and other allies of former President Trump, who have reacted strongly against judges obstructing parts of Trump’s policy agenda. These criticisms have even extended to threats of impeachment and personal attacks. The Federal Judges Association, the largest body of its kind, has also condemned what it describes as “irresponsible rhetoric” grounded in misinformation, cautioning that this can erode public trust in the judiciary.
Judge Sullivan, along with Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the federal appeals court based in Cincinnati, Ohio, addressed these issues during a call with reporters that followed a meeting of the Judicial Conference, which oversees the federal judiciary. Both judges highlighted the need for discussions on enhancing security measures for judges, both in their workplaces and residences.
Judge Sutton, appointed by President George W. Bush, noted the inherent expectation of delivering unfavorable outcomes to about half of the litigants, but explained that when criticism escalates to threats, it’s essentially an attack on judicial independence—a situation harmful to both the judiciary and the nation. Both judges abstained from directly naming Musk or Trump in their comments, yet acknowledged the increased frequency of such threats over recent years.
Chief Justice John Roberts has also drawn attention to the challenges posed to judicial independence by intimidation and misinformation, further complicated by the potential defiance of court orders by public officials. Despite the rising dangers, Congress has not increased funding for judicial security, as noted by Judge Sullivan, who pointed out that the financial resources have remained stagnant for two years, failing to adjust to inflationary and evolving security challenges.
The judges objected to the notion of using impeachment as a shortcut for dissatisfaction with judicial decisions. Sullivan remarked that the judicial process is designed to allow multiple opportunities for appeals and review, from the trial court all the way to the Supreme Court. Hence, he finds it concerning if impeachment is employed to disrupt this otherwise extensive process.
