Judges Who Ruled Against Trump Fear for Their Lives.
Explore why some judges who ruled against Trump now express concerns for their safety amidst rising threats to the judiciary.
Judges Who Ruled Against Trump
Click to summarize this article.
Judges Who Ruled Against Trump: A growing number of federal Judges now fear for their safety. This fear follows rulings they issued that upset President Donald Trump. They also worry after defending the courts in public.
Many judges describe loud attacks and real-world harassment. This pattern is seen after they rule against Trump. Families are also affected, leading to changes in daily routines.
At the courthouse, security is strong. But at home, it feels weak. Judges are taking steps to protect themselves, like upgrading cameras and limiting online sharing. Some even think about moving for safety. This shows how serious the situation is.
Reporting on threats and harassment faced by judges has highlighted the issue. The U.S. Marshals Service tries to protect them. Yet, many judges feel most at risk when they’re not in court.
Courts are also working to protect sensitive data. This is important as fear grows. For example, there’s a fight over privacy in cases like the Epstein victims’ case. Privacy protections are key to keeping personal information safe.
The situation is serious. It can make judges question whether the job is worth it. The question is, will the next generation of judges want to serve?
Judges Who Ruled Against Trump Key Takeaways
- More judges report fear after rulings involving Trump or public defense of the judiciary.
- Harsh political attacks are often followed by threats that reach judges’ homes and families.
- Many judges are changing routines, boosting home security, and limiting online exposure.
- Courthouses are guarded, but judges say home is where they feel most vulnerable.
- The U.S. Marshals Service investigates threats, but protection can depend on specific risk.
- Privacy and data security are increasingly tied to safety for judges and court participants.
Judges Who Ruled Against Trump Fear for Their Lives
Judges who ruled against Trump now live in fear. This fear changes their daily lives, travel, and family plans. After each major ruling, the courts must balance open justice with the growing threat to judges’ homes.
Judges link heated political talk to real intimidation. They point to Stephen Miller’s “judicial coup” claim and Attorney General Pam Bondi’s attack on “low-level leftist judges.” These messages spread fast online, turning into threats.
Some MAGA influencers call for impeaching judges who block Trump’s moves. Judges see this as pressure on the judiciary. Reporting shows harassment spikes after court losses, with a different tone this year.
The White House tries to separate criticism from danger. Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson defends the administration’s attacks while saying they care about judges’ safety.
Judge John Coughenour’s experience after blocking a birthright citizenship order
Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, 84, faced a big challenge on Jan. 23. His ruling blocked an executive order on birthright citizenship. He called it blatantly unconstitutional; the case is now before the Supreme Court.
That day, Trump commented on the Seattle case, saying it was before “a certain judge in Seattle.” Trump’s words made judges feel as if they were always in the spotlight.
Coughenour later said he took a gun from the courthouse and brought it home. He wasn’t a gun enthusiast but felt the need to protect himself, showing how threats can follow judges home.
How intimidation shows up in real life: swatting, doxing, and anonymous deliveries
Judges and court security talk about intimidation tactics. These tactics use speed, surprise, and distance. They exploit public records and police rules, making judges’ homes vulnerable.
- Swatting: In Coughenour’s case, an anonymous caller said he had murdered his wife and was barricaded inside. This led to a false armed response.
- Bomb hoaxes: Another call said there was a bomb in his mailbox. Officers found nothing.
- Doxing: Personal details are shared to invite harassment, sometimes with false emergency reports.
- Anonymous deliveries: Unwanted items like pizzas are used to signal, “We know where you live,” without a face-to-face encounter.
U.S. District Judge Stephen Bough in Kansas City got pizzas at 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. after a ruling. A pizza also arrived for his daughter in Atlanta. He notified the U.S. Marshals and worked with local police, saying, “You alter your lifestyle.”
Other judges share their fears. A Trump-appointed judge, speaking anonymously, said death threats came after a ruling. His wife, overseas at the time, felt scared, leading to tighter home security. At least one judge moved after a verdict, fearing their location was no longer safe.
Details from federal judges facing threats show how quickly harassment can turn dangerous. In this climate, a single threat can change how judges travel, how families answer the door, and how the judiciary keeps the courts visible and safe.
Threats to the Judiciary: Safety, Justice, and the U.S. Marshals Response
Across the United States, federal judges face a tense new reality. The U.S. Marshals Service has warned of a heightened threat level. Judges now think differently about their daily safety and the work of justice.
Recent reporting shows how fast online anger can turn into real threats. Judges worry not just for themselves but also for their families and staff.
“Pizza deliveries” as a warning: “We know where you live.”
Senior U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik received pizzas at his home and his adult children’s homes. He saw it as a clear message: they knew his address, and harm could come.
U.S. Marshals briefed Judge Esther Salas on 103 pizza deliveries to judges who ruled against the Trump administration. Salas said 20 deliveries were sent to her late son, Daniel Anderl. Many judges see this as psychological warfare, not a prank.
Judge Esther Salas and the lasting impact of courthouse-to-home vulnerability
Salas, a U.S. District Judge in New Jersey, is a leading voice on judicial safety. In 2020, a disgruntled lawyer attacked her home; Daniel Anderl was murdered, and her husband was shot.
She urges judges to speak out against intimidation and violence. She also reported a security breach tied to her role, which forced her to cancel her credit cards. This shows how threats can move from the street to the screen.
Salas has faced more recent, unsuccessful pizza delivery attempts. She warned that “bad actors” use her son’s name to unsettle judges nationwide and shake confidence in justice.
Possible foreign involvement and the role of cyber and privacy protection
The U.S. Marshals Service has considered foreign involvement in some pizza deliveries. Two federal judges said they were told foreign involvement was suspected, though no country was named. A Marshals spokesperson declined to discuss it while an investigation continues.
Ron Zayas, a cybersecurity contractor, said his firm, Ironwall, saw signs of foreign intervention. He believes a campaign can start organically and then be “seized upon” to undermine trust in the judiciary.
Zayas’s work focuses on reducing doxing risk by scrubbing personal data from the open internet. Even with federal protections passed after Anderl’s murder, he warns that private information can surface on the dark web. This keeps long-term safety concerns alive.
Threat statistics and resource limits
Agency data shows 564 threats against judges in fiscal year 2025, with 131 recorded in October. Chief Justice John Roberts has reported that threats against judges have tripled over the last decade. Judges say this strains the system meant to protect justice.
Judges point to tight budgets and limited staffing at the U.S. Marshals Service. Courthouses are secure, but home life can feel exposed. 24/7 protection is rare unless a specific threat is identified.
- More security steps are shifting to homes, including cameras, alarms, and risk assessments.
- More cases now involve online harassment, doxing, and intimidation aimed at family members.
- More judges describe a chilling effect on public service when safety becomes a daily calculation.
Judges Who Ruled Against Trump Conclusion
Across the country, judges who ruled against trump face growing threats. What was once just angry words has now turned into real danger. They face swatting calls, bomb hoaxes, and more, all aimed at their homes.
This change has raised safety concerns for judges and their families. Their homes and daily lives are now targets. Some judges have moved, installed better security, and kept a low profile to stay safe.
U.S. Marshals are trying to figure out who is behind these threats. They think some might be from abroad, but it’s not clear. This uncertainty makes things even more challenging for judges, as threats can spread quickly.
The impact on our society is significant. If judges feel threatened, it’s harder for them to do their jobs. This could lead to fewer qualified judges, weakening our justice system. In the U.S., threats against judges are a severe test of our rule of law.
Judges Who Ruled Against Trump FAQ
Why do some judges who ruled against Trump say they fear for their lives?
Judges who ruled against President Donald Trump face threats. They say harsh criticism from Trump officials leads to harassment. This fear is not just in courtrooms but also at home.
What pattern do judges describe after rulings against the Trump administration?
Judges face harsh criticism and then threats. Online attacks can quickly turn into real threats. This creates a climate of fear in the courts.
What kinds of threats and harassment are judges reporting?
Judges report swatting, bomb hoaxes, and doxing. They also face death threats and harassment of their families. These tactics aim to intimidate judges and their families.
What happened to Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour after his ruling?
Judge John Coughenour, 84, blocked an executive order in January. He received threats and decided to arm himself. He stored a gun at the courthouse and brought it home.
How did President Trump react to Judge Coughenour’s Seattle ruling?
Trump criticized the ruling the same day. He said, “They put it before a certain judge in Seattle, I guess, right? And there’s no surprises with that judge.” His comments can fuel hostility and threats.
What is “swatting,” and how has it been used against judges?
Swatting is making a false emergency report. In Judge Coughenour’s case, someone called the sheriff, saying he was barricaded and had murdered his wife. Police found it was false, but it’s a dangerous tactic.
What was the bomb hoax involving Judge Coughenour?
Someone called about a bomb in Judge Coughenour’s mailbox. Law enforcement found no threat. Bomb hoaxes raise fear levels and can put families at risk.
Why are “pizza deliveries” seen as intimidation?
Unsolicited pizza deliveries are a message: someone knows where judges live. Judge Robert Lasnik and his family received deliveries. It’s a chilling reminder of the danger.
What happened to U.S. District Judge Stephen Bough and his family?
Judge Stephen Bough received pizzas at 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. after a ruling. His daughter in Atlanta also got a pizza. He increased security and changed his routine.
Are judges changing their daily routines because of safety threats?
Yes, judges are upgrading home security and changing routines. Some consider relocating. At least one judge moved after a ruling due to safety concerns.
Why do judges say they feel most vulnerable at home, not at the courthouse?
Courthouses are secure, but homes are vulnerable. Judges focus more on home security than on courtroom safety. This is because threats can be carried out at home with less warning.
What role does the U.S. Marshals Service play in protecting judges?
The U.S. Marshals Service protects federal judges and investigates threats against them. They help assess risks and support home security. But 24/7 protection is not typical unless there’s a specific threat.
What rhetoric do judges say has accelerated threats against the judiciary?
High-profile statements questioning court rulings have heightened threats. Deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller called rulings against Trump a “judicial coup.” Judges fear these comments can intensify hostility.
What did the White House say about criticism of judges and judge safety?
The White House defended criticism of judges, saying the Supreme Court often blocks the same rulings. They also said they care about judges’ safety.
Who is Judge Esther Salas, and why is her case central to these safety concerns?
Judge Esther Salas is a U.S. District Judge in New Jersey. Her son was murdered in 2020. She says judges must speak out against threats to the judiciary and its independence.
How is Daniel Anderl’s name being used in intimidation campaigns?
Salas says Daniel Anderl’s name is used to intimidate. The U.S. Marshals Service reported 103 pizza deliveries to judges who ruled against Trump. Salas said 20 were sent to others in Daniel Anderl’s name.
Are foreign actors suspected of threats against judges?
The U.S. Marshals Service suspects some pizza deliveries might be from foreign actors. Cybersecurity contractor Ron Zayas said his company saw signs of foreign involvement. The Russian Embassy did not comment.
How does doxing increase the danger for judges and their families?
Doxing involves releasing personal details such as home addresses and phone numbers. Judges say it makes them and their families targets. Even when data is removed, it can resurface online.
What privacy protections exist for judges, and why do gaps remain?
Federal law allows judges’ personal information to be redacted. But data can reappear through leaks or online marketplaces. Judges rely on monitoring and data removal to reduce threats.
How many threats against judges are being reported, and what does the trend show?
There were 564 threats against judges in fiscal year 2025. Chief Justice John Roberts said threats have tripled over the last decade. Judges see a worsening threat environment.
Are the U.S. Marshals overstretched amid rising threats?
Judges say the U.S. Marshals Service is stretched thin. They face a rising number of threats with limited resources. Protection often relies on targeted responses rather than constant coverage.
Why do judges worry that this intimidation could affect judicial independence?
Intimidation aims to shape decisions through fear, threatening independent judgment. Judges worry it could deter qualified lawyers from seeking judgeships. This is a long-term risk to the rule of law and equal justice.
