Women judges see rising threats to their work — and clear paths to defusing them

Federal judges rarely defend their work publicly. The typical mandate for those in the judiciary is to let their decisions speak for themselves. Commentary outside of that risks being criticized as biased or politically motivated.

But as political violence rises against public figures, and as public confidence in the judicial system shrinks, current and former women judges are the leading voices weighing in.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned in May against what she described as “relentless attacks” on judges that she said risks “undermining our Constitution.” Most recently, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pushed back against contentions she is moving to enforce the Trump administration’s political agenda. “I’m nobody’s justice,” she told USA Today  

These remarks come in a year of heightened scrutiny for the judiciary, as President Donald Trump and other Republican politicians have called for impeaching judges who rule against the administration’s actions. 

Through groups like the Article III Coalition and Speak Up for Justice, judges including local, state and federal are making appearances on network news and participating in community events that aim to inform the public and political leaders about the responsibilities of the judiciary, and the risks posed by hyperpartisanship and political volatility.

One of the most vocal women in this effort is Judge Esther Salas, the first Latina judge to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Salas was forced into the national spotlight five years ago when an assailant fatally shot her 20-year-old son, Daniel Anderl, at their family home. Her husband was also shot, but survived. Salas told The 19th that she had two options: She could sink into the “valley of despair” that threatened to take over, or she could try to hold on to her light.

“When someone you love has given their life for your life to continue, how can you not be positive?” Salas said. “I became that Mama Bear. Like my only child was taken, we’ve got to do something about this. And that’s when, behind the scenes, I started bucking some of the folks that didn’t want me to talk.”

The 19th spoke with Salas and several former women federal judges about threats they have faced and what they see as the most critical solutions to reinforce judicial independence and security in today’s climate.

Security Infrastructure and Funding

Serious threats against federal judges more than doubled between the end of fiscal year 2021 and the end of fiscal year 2023, according to data from the U.S. Marshals Service, the agency tasked with providing security to the federal judiciary. Violence against judges is not exclusive to women in the profession and data examining threats to women judges is limited. Researchers previously told The 19th that women in public office generally are more vulnerable, both in the frequency and  the types of threats they receive, which are often sexual, target family members and denigrate their qualifications. 

High-profile attacks on women federal judges and their families ignited increased demand for more legislative action to bolster security. In 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Joan Lefkow came home to find her husband and mother fatally shot by a former plaintiff. Late that year, Lefkow testified before Congress on the need for better protections. The Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 provided some enhanced security measures and increased criminal penalties for threatening behavior.

Thirteen years later, Salas’ family was attacked by a lawyer who described himself as an “anti-feminist,” and had appeared before Salas in court. He was later found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Following her son’s death, Salas championed a 2020 New Jersey law shielding judges’ personal information like phone numbers and addresses from public release. A federal law signed in 2022 similarly barred disclosure of such personal information, and authorized funding to strengthen security resources and hiring for the Marshals Service.

But women judges told The 19th that funding for security has fluctuated, and protocols for handling threats are inconsistent. Former U.S. Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley recalled receiving death threats shortly after her time on the federal bench began in 1994.

“You didn’t have the funding for a security system,” she said. “When the Marshals first came to my house after my death threat, I said, ‘Well, what kind of security do I need?’ And they said, ‘We got a black dog. That’s probably the best thing.’”

Even with these limitations, O’Malley described the Marshals’ support as essential. They would take her to and from work, she said, and they took her children to school as well. “I can’t even fathom not having had them there,” she said. “That’s what gave me the confidence to keep going through my day, to be willing to go back in that courthouse and to make all the tough decisions without worrying about whether there were going to be any repercussions.”

The budget for salaries and expenses in the U.S. Marshals Service has hovered between $1.2 and $1.7 billion over the last decade. Judges and lawmakers concerned with judicial security argue that this does not keep pace with inflation nor the increased need for more security measures. Additionally, the Trump administration’s expansion of immigration enforcement and detention has pulled resources from other federal law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Marshals Service.

“In the age of budget cuts, the area we should not be cutting is the courts,” Salas said, adding: “When it comes to security, and the security of judges, I think we have to make sure that we are funding the judges, and that we’re funding the Marshals.”

Public Education About Judges’ Roles

Judges around the country are focusing on civic education as a key way to resolve concerns about judicial independence and security. One 2024 study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that more than 70 percent of Americans fail a “basic civic literacy quiz on topics like the three branches of government, the number of Supreme Court justices and other basic functions of our democracy.”

Civic education has decreased since the 1960s, but the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 cemented its decline by tying school funding to standardized test scores in math and reading. Social studies instruction – which would include civics — fell by an average of 76 minutes per week in elementary schools between 2002 and 2007, according to a report by the Sandra Day O’Connor Institute.

“We have young adults now out in the world who potentially went through their entire K-12 education without any required social studies, or only having a civics class in their high school years,” said Donna Phillips, president and CEO of the Center for Civic Education. “Today you see the level of apathy and the misunderstanding of our constitutional principles, separation of powers, checks and balances — even amendment processes, regulations, the roles of different departments.”

Judges said that they believe these trends in civic education have a direct line to the level of distrust and animosity aimed at the judiciary. Of course there are layers of nuance. Public opinion on the judiciary is also influenced by increasing partisanship in judicial selection and confirmation processes, and secrecy in some court decisionmaking on consequential cases. Notably, major U.S. Supreme Court decisions striking down federal abortion protections and banning the use of race-conscious admissions in higher education have also driven criticism among women and historically marginalized communities.

Still, judges say they want to help the public better understand the role of an independent judiciary. Members of the Article III Coalition have participated in public town halls and visits to local communities and law schools to answer questions and make members of the judiciary more accessible.

“I really feel like it’s important, especially at this point in time, for those of us who can talk, to talk about why we have three branches of government and what the role of a judge is,” said Deanell Reece Tacha, who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. “It’s frustrating for a judge, because when you look at the public description of cases, you are led to believe that there’s a big political branch working. That is so not the case.”

An End to Weaponizing the Judiciary

Republicans, including the president and members of Congress, have been criticized for singling out federal judges by name, questioning both their credentials and calling for them to be impeached.

Since 1789, only 15 federal judges have ever been impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. Eight of those judges were also convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office.

“I think it’s very unfortunate that the president has been throwing that word around,” said Diane Wood, who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. 

“It’s just damaging to the reputation of the judiciary to say, ‘I’m going to try to toss this person off the court using the only tool I have, which is impeachment,’” she continued. “That’s a misuse of impeachment and should not be part of the discussion. And it’s certainly in some ways even worse to say, ‘We’re just not going to obey [the court] because we — the executive branch — don’t agree.’”

Salas expressed similar criticism, stating: “They’re not trying to tamp anything down or de-escalate it.” Though she didn’t mention Trump or the Republican Party specifically, she added that disinformation is “coming from the top down,” seeking to erode public confidence in the judiciary.

While many judges insist the judiciary remains an independent branch of government, judicial experts have pointed to Donald Trump’s time in the White House, beginning with his first term in 2017, as a notable shift toward increased judicial partisanship. In just four years, 234 of Trump’s judicial nominees were confirmed to lifetime positions by the Senate, including three U.S. Supreme Court justices and 54 appellate judges. This represented nearly one-third of the entire federal bench at the time. The Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, played an outsized role in influencing Trump’s judicial nominations. Research indicates that politics have increasingly influenced decisionmaking on some federal courts.

Current and former judges told The 19th that in some cases politicians look to the judiciary as a lawmaking tool rather than as an independent body tasked with determining the constitutionality of different laws. These judges are calling on political leaders to respect the court’s nonpartisan position. 

“Why doesn’t that branch of government [Congress] have any responsibility for looking out after looking out for the people for whom it is responsible? They’ve been largely missing in action on a lot of the debates that are policy debates,” said Allyson Duncan, former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. 

“You’re making courts out to be the arbiters of political norms that aren’t necessarily legal norms, and giving Congress a pass.”