May

Judge: John Bates (D. D.C.)
Forum: Unveiling of Bates’ official portrait, D.C. Federal Courthouse, 5/1/25
Comments: “Judges are not defined by the presidents who appoint them. […P]ersonal attacks on individual judges [and] threats to take action against specific judges or the courts should be met with uniform censure.”

Judge: Royce Lamberth (D. D.C.)
Forum: Unveiling of Judge Bates’ official portrait, D.C. Federal Courthouse, 5/1/25
Comments: “If our nation is to thrive for another 250 years, each coequal branch of government must be willing to courageously exert the authority entrusted to it by our Founders.”

Judge: Article III Coalition (a group of 20 former federal judges)
Forum: Open letter, 5/1/25
Comments: “Although we come from different corners of America and have been appointed by Presidents of both parties, we former members of the third branch are ready for our third act. We pledge not only to keep our Republic, but to strengthen it. To defend the rule of law. To protect the independence of the judiciary. […] We call on all our former colleagues to join us in tending to our democracy.”

Judge: Justice Jackson
Forum: First Circuit Judicial Conference, Rio Grande, Puerto Rico, 5/1/25
Comments: “It is very stressful to have to decide a difficult case in the spotlight and under pressure. And especially for a single district judge, having to manage a high-profile, fast moving, consequential case involving a challenge to government action is enormously difficult. When you add to that having to endure baseless attacks on your intelligence and integrity — coming from people who are not so subtly trying to influence your decision making — it can sometimes take raw courage to remain steadfast in doing what the law requires.”

Judge: Paul Michel (ret.; Federal Circuit)
Forum: Interview in Bloomberg Law, 5/1/25
Comments: “[There are] growing efforts to intimidate judges or for political figures to interfere or try to interfere in decisions and rulings of judges. […] Those sort of publicly expressed threats can motivate angry people to take direct action against judges and their families. […] There are other ways the courts can be threatened with limiting jurisdiction or reducing funding, but the biggest problem is that many citizens don’t seem to understand that the popularity of judicial rulings is not the point. The point is for judges to follow the law and the facts and not the politics and not popular considerations.”

April

Judge: Esther Salas (D. New Jersey)
Forum: Virtual Forum on Judicial Safety, 4/15/25 
Comments: “The American people need to understand the threats being lobbed at judges. […] This is not a partisan issue, it’s an American issue. […] I’m very concerned about this bonfire that has been brewing for years. Instead of trying to squelch it, we are adding fuel to it. It is burning hotter than ever, and judges’ lives are in danger.”

Judge: Michelle Childs (D.C. Circuit)
Forum: National Constitution Center Panel, 4/3/25
Comments: “We don’t want judges worried about the decisions that they’ll make in any particular case. It’s not fair to the litigants. It’s not fair to the system. And again, we are a co-equal branch of government and should never have to do our jobs with any sense of intimidation.”

Judge: Margaret McKeown (Ninth Circuit)
Forum: National Constitution Center Panel, 4/3/25
Comments: “Since the foundation of the country, the legitimacy of the judiciary has rested on the trust of the public. […] [one of the greatest efforts at intimidation] is this call to impeach judges because someone disagrees with their decision.”

March

Judge: Justice Sotomayor 
Forum: Remarks at Georgetown Law, 3/28/25
Comments: “Court decisions stand. Whether one particular person chooses to abide by them or not, it doesn’t change the foundation that it’s still a court order that someone will respect at some point. That’s the faith that I have in our system.”

Judge: Kimberly Mueller (E.D. California)
Forum: Class action law panel, 3/20/25
Comments: “It is not a time for people to be bystanders. I think people should think long and hard about what role they play […] Everyone who cares about our constitutional republic needs to reflect on what they can do [about attacks on the judiciary.]” 

Judge: Chief Justice Roberts
Forum: Statement to press, 3/19/25
Comments: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that [judicial] impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Judge: Richard Sullivan (Second Circuit)
Forum: Call with reporters following closed-door meeting of Judicial Conference, 3/11/25
Comments: “Threats against judges are threats against constitutional government. Everyone should be taking this seriously. […] 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.”

Judge: Jeffrey Sutton (Sixth Circuit)
Forum: Call with reporters following closed-door meeting of Judicial Conference, 3/11/25
Comments: “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.”

February

Judge: Michael Ponsor (D. Mass.)
Forum: Op-ed for the New York Times, 2/27/25
Comments: “The existence of an independent judiciary is the difference between a free people and a tyranny. The judicial branch of our Republic must possess, and be perceived as possessing, a fearless, bedrock integrity. In certain countries dominated by brutal drug cartels, the rumor was that judges were given the choice between “silver or lead” — that is, between accepting a bribe or taking a bullet. Are we risking a time when no judge can function without a distorting level of concern for self and family? Where are we going? Who’s that knocking at the door?”

December

Judge: Chief Justice Roberts
Forum: 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, 12/31/24
Comments: “There is of course no place for violence directed at judges for doing their job. Yet, in recent years, there has been a significant uptick in identified threats at all levels of the judiciary. […] Within the past few years […], elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings. These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected. Judicial independence is worth preserving. […V]iolence, intimidation,and defiance directed at judges because of their work undermine our Republic, and are wholly unacceptable.”