By Cortez Collins, FTC law clerk

Federal judges are facing growing political attacks and personal threats that risk undermining the independence of the judiciary, according to a new report from NYU Law’s Rule of Law Lab and the Berkeley Judicial Institute.

On a recent episode of the Society for the Rule of Law Institute’s “Checks & Balances” podcast, NYU Law Prof. Amrit Singh and retired federal Judge Jeremy Fogel joined host Gregg Nunziata to discuss their report, “Threats to the Independence of the Federal Judiciary.” The report draws from interviews with federal judges appointed by presidents of both major political parties and examines violence, intimidation, disinformation and defiance of court orders.

The researchers emphasized that criticism of courts is a legitimate and constitutionally protected part of American political discourse. But they argue that personal attacks and intimidation can cross a different line.

Those pressures have come from across the political spectrum. In recent years, some on the left have sharply criticized the Supreme Court following decisions such as Dobbs and have supported proposals to expand the Court. On the right, judges who rule against President Trump or his administration have faced personal attacks and calls for impeachment.

The report notes that public officials from both parties have used inflammatory language about judges. Trump himself has repeatedly criticized judges and justices following adverse decisions. During his second term, the Supreme Court has handed his administration both victories and defeats, including rulings involving tariffs and birthright citizenship. More recently, Trump attacked members of the Court following an adverse ruling involving mail ballots, portraying the decision as a betrayal by justices he appointed.

Singh and Fogel highlighted an even more direct concern, one increasingly common intimidation tactic that has been dubbed “pizza doxxing.” Judges have received unsolicited pizza deliveries at their homes, sometimes late at night, signaling that someone knows where they and their families live.

Nearly 200 such incidents involving federal judges have been reported since 2025. At least 20 deliveries were reportedly made in the name of Daniel Anderl, the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas of New Jersey, who was murdered at the family’s home in 2020 by a gunman targeting his mother.

Despite the prevalence of pizza doxxing and other intimidation tactics, arrests or prosecutions connected to many of these incidents have been rare.

The consequences can extend beyond a judge’s personal security. During the podcast, Nunziata raised the account of an unnamed judge who considered the possible consequences for his family before issuing a ruling. According to Singh and Fogel’s published account, the judge spent approximately 45 minutes considering whether to abandon a ruling he believed was legally correct because of fears for his family’s safety. He ultimately issued the ruling, but described himself as traumatized by the experience.

Fogel also discussed how these pressures can be particularly concerning for judges whose continued service depends on elections. Unlike life-tenured federal judges, many state judges must periodically face voters, adding another potential source of pressure when controversial cases attract threats and political attacks.

The broader numbers underscore the concern. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reported that security incidents of significant concern involving judges increased 57 percent in fiscal year 2025 and were on pace to increase again in 2026. The U.S. Marshals Service separately reported hundreds of threats against federal judges annually in recent years.

Fogel offered another striking example during the podcast: at a gathering of approximately 125 judges, he asked how many had recently received a threat.

More than half raised their hands.

These incidents illustrate why debates over judicial independence cannot focus solely on whether the public agrees with particular rulings. Judges must be subject to scrutiny, criticism and accountability within the constitutional system. But the ability to decide cases without fearing retaliation against themselves or their families is equally fundamental.

As Fogel put it during the discussion, “Without judicial independence, there can be no liberty.”

Protecting that independence therefore requires preserving both principles at once: the public’s right to criticize the courts and judges’ ability to decide cases without intimidation.

As threats grow more personal, Congress, law enforcement and the judiciary must ensure that disagreement with judicial decisions does not become a tool for coercing the judges who make them.