New Rule of Law Lab report documents escalating threats to federal judges
Attacks on the federal judiciary have intensified, and few of those responsible have been held to account, according to a new study by the Rule of Law Lab at NYU Law and the Berkeley Judicial Institute. The report draws on recent interviews with 34 federal judges—half of them Republican appointees and half Democratic appointees—along with research into public materials.
The report, entitled “Threats to the Independence of the Federal Judiciary,” follows the taxonomy of threats identified by Chief Justice John Roberts in his 2024 Year End Report on the federal judiciary. Amrit Singh, professor of practice and faculty director of the Rule of Law Lab, is the lead author of the new report, which was edited by retired US District Judge Jeremy Fogel, executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute. Interviews with the judges were conducted between October 2025 and July 2026.
“Our report shows that escalating threats directed at both Republican and Democratic appointees because of their cases and rulings are imposing a significant personal toll on federal judges. At the same time, there are serious questions about the effectiveness of investigations into certain threats, especially with respect to a tactic known as ‘pizza doxxing,’” says Singh, alluding to anonymous pizza deliveries sent to judges’ homes to indicate that their addresses are known to the sender.
Judge Esther Salas, whose son Daniel Anderl was murdered in 2020 by a disgruntled lawyer, told the researchers that she was aware of about 200 such pizza doxxings, of which at least 20 were sent in the name of her murdered son. Those responsible for these and other threats remain at large. US District Judge John McConnell, whose daughter’s personal information was posted on the internet in 2025, also was unaware of any ensuing arrests or prosecutions. Similarly, US District Judge John Coughenour was unaware of any arrests or prosecutions relating to the 2025 “swatting” incident in which the police appeared with guns drawn at his home after they received a false report that he had murdered his wife.
The report found that attacks on federal judges have become more frequent and more severe. The Administrative Office of the US Courts recently told Congress that security incidents of significant concern involving judges rose 57 percent in fiscal year 2025. The judges interviewed consistently identified two drivers of the threats they received: ad hominem attacks by public officials and the amplification of those attacks on social media. The report also showed that judges are being targeted for speaking publicly about attacks on the judiciary.
In addition to threats of violence, the report also documents intimidation and disinformation directed at federal judges, as well as defiance of court orders. Since 2025, members of Congress have introduced 15 impeachment resolutions against 12 federal judges, targeting them at least in part for their rulings. In February 2026 Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz of the District of Minnesota recorded 210 instances in which the Trump administration had violated court orders.
Judges consistently voiced intense concern for the safety of their family members and described changing their commutes, installing panic buttons, and paying for private security in response to the current climate. Two judges separately told the researchers, “We are sitting ducks.”
Despite the threats, judges said they remained committed to executing their duties without fear or favor. “We will not be intimidated,” US District Judge Fred Biery told the researchers. “The oath [we take] is to the Constitution, not to some political party or someone who wants a particular result.”
The report urges public officials to refrain from efforts to intimidate judges, and Congress to fully fund and oversee judicial security, noting that fewer than 3,900 deputy marshals now protect roughly 2,500 to 2,700 judges. It also recommends that the Department of Justice prioritize investigating and prosecuting threats, keep targeted judges informed of the status of investigations, and publish annual data on threats and investigations. Finally, the report advocates that states protect judges’ personal information and encourages bar associations, and judges to defend judicial independence publicly.
“Our evidence-based assessment confirms that the norms protecting judicial independence can no longer be taken for granted,” Singh says. “This is a nonpartisan issue that warrants the urgent attention of public officials across the political spectrum, the legal profession, and the public at large.”