If Trump keeps threatening our judges, we'll lose our rule of law

Yahoo

a day ago

In recent weeks, President Trump has called various federal judges "monsters who want our country to go to hell,' "EVIL,' "lunatics,' "CORRUPT,' "crooked,' "unfair disaster[s],' and "disgraceful.'
Down Pennsylvania Avenue, in the halls of Congress, Representative Andy Ogles (R-TN) recently put up Western-style "wanted posters' of various federal court judges.
High-profile political actors from Elon Musk to Representative Marjorie Taylor Green to Arizona's own Representative Eli Crane have recently called for the impeachment of judges.
All told, such words have unsurprisingly led to increased unpleasantness for federal judges – death threats to Judge Amir Ali, bomb threats to the sister of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, suspicious deliveries to Judges Paul Engelmayer and Jeanette Vargas, etc. The U.S. Marshals Service reported 224 investigated threats to federal judges in 2021.
That number grew to 457 in 2023. And 2025 is on pace for a new record.
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts recently made a rare public rebuke of attacks on the federal judiciary: "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.'
So too did Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson ("relentless attacks … undermining our Constitution and the rule of law.')
Last week, Congressional Democrats introduced a bill to transfer control of the U.S. Marshals – the men and women who provide security for the courts – from the executive branch to the federal judiciary. The authors of the bill fear that without the legislative change, judges will fear for their safety if they rule against President Trump.
All of this is unfortunate. And while it might be worse than ever, none of this is new.
We know that in Arizona.
I clearly remember the left's hostile reaction when the Arizona Supreme Court ruled against the "Invest in Ed' initiative in 2018. Some critics challenged the merits of the legal opinion. That's fine. It's even healthy.
Others chose a different route. They questioned the ethics of the judges. Or their patriotism. Or their commitment to democracy.
Similar charges were made following the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling that reinstated Arizona's 1864 abortion ban.
Activists focused on Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King, saying they were "unfit to serve' or that they were "abusing their positions for years to serve a political agenda.' Former state legislator Athena Salman called into question the whole judicial process: "[This] corrupt Court completely disregards our rights.'
Nevermind that judges were being asked to make a specific legal determination on what the laws, as written, required. They weren't being asked for their opinion on what the law should be, or whether or not it was absurd to return to Arizona's territorial law.
I once proudly thought the political right was largely immune from such nonsensical actions.
But then Abe Hamadeh and Kari Lake came on the scene. Following their various losses, they blamed anyone possible. And that included the judiciary.
Hamadeh, now a Congressman, once wrote derogatorily of the political left that, "In their attempt to further destroy the rule of law, Democrats are going after judges who stand in their way.'
But his tune changed following his winless record in state trial courts, appellate courts, and the Arizona Supreme Court:
"[Judicial] corruption must be rooted out completely.'
"Marxist radical Democrat judges are destroying America while Republican judges are surrendering.'
"I wish our judges loved the rule of law more than they hate me.'
Never once did Hamadeh consider that he was simply wrong on the law and the facts. Instead it was the moral character of every single judge who ruled on his cases. He got so convinced of his own victimhood and judicial corruption that he took to the airwaves on the James T. Harris Show to call for the removal of Ducey-appointed Justice Clint Bolick.
As for Kari Lake, after each legal loss – and there are lots of them – she takes to social media to boldly state that she only lost because of 'corruption,' 'cowardice,' 'cabals,' or 'compromised' judges.
She even accused one judge of unlawfully handing over his judicial responsibilities to liberal attorney Marc Elias – a 'ghostwritten' legal decision.
I witnessed first hand the effects of such comments. In May 2023, I sat in the courtroom of one Lake case when my team found a social media message from a Lake supporter threatening the judge in the case. We showed it to the court. The court paused the case until additional security could be provided.
This needs to stop.
The judiciary's role is to make decisions on facts and law. Inevitably, some litigants win, and some lose. That's true even in emotionally fraught cases. It's true in political cases.
And sometimes, even if the public is overwhelmingly on one side, that side might lose because the facts and law don't support that side.
That's how the law works. And we are a country of law.
The losing party must respect this process.
You can of course disagree with a court's ruling. You can write or speak about how they got the law wrong. You can appeal.
But comments to the effect of 'corruption,' should be reserved for situations in which there is, in fact, corruption – e.g. if a judge takes a monetary bribe to rule a certain way.
Similarly, calls for impeachment or the removal of the judge shouldn't be made simply because you dislike a ruling. They should be limited to obviously deficient or illegal conduct.
If the path we're currently on continues, and if politicians like President Trump continue threatening our judiciary, then it's trouble for the future independence of the judiciary. Judges won't be able to fairly evaluate facts and law if they fear that a ruling that aggravates one party may lead to the judge's physical harm or removal from the position.
That's extortion. And who would even want to be a judge in such a setting? Only the corrupt.
As Arizona Justice Clint Bolick wrote in these pages, "it's game over if judges look over their shoulders.'
Stephen Richer is a former Maricopa County recorder. He is now a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government's Ash Center, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and CEO of Republic Affairs. Follow him on X: @stephen_richer.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Trump's attacks on judges threaten US rule of law | Opinion