In democratic societies, the rule of law is the cornerstone of civil order and human rights. At the heart of this principle is an independent judiciary—judges and judicial officers who interpret and apply the law without fear, favor, or interference. However, in recent years, threats to the safety and security of members of the judiciary have intensified both in frequency and in gravity. This troubling trend underscores the urgent need to treat judicial security as a fundamental component of a functioning democracy.
THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY
The judiciary is entrusted with upholding the Constitution, interpreting statutes, resolving disputes, and safeguarding individual rights. Judges are expected to remain impartial and to rule based solely on the law and the facts presented to them. This impartiality, however, can often put them at odds with powerful individuals or institutions, criminal enterprises, political movements, and even the public when rulings are unpopular.
Because of this, judicial independence is not only a professional expectation but a structural necessity. The public must have confidence that judges are not coerced, bribed, or intimidated into their decisions. This independence, however, becomes hollow if judicial officers are not physically safe.
The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people and every blessing of society, depends so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checks upon that.1
Adams’s words serve as a timeless reminder that a judiciary free from influence or intimidation is not merely desirable—it is essential to the functioning of democracy itself. In the absence of adequate safety and protection, the independence he envisioned is imperiled, and with it, the public’s trust in the entire system of justice.
RISING THREATS TO JUDICIAL SAFETY
The threats facing judges are varied and growing. They include physical violence, cyberattacks, doxing, stalking, and threats both in person and online. Judges involved in high-profile cases—particularly those dealing with organized crime, political corruption, domestic terrorism, or hot-button social issues—are especially vulnerable.
One of the most chilling reminders of this vulnerability was the 2020 attack on U.S. District Judge Esther Salas’s family, in which a disgruntled litigant fatally shot her son and critically injured her husband at their home.2 Judge Salas has since become a national advocate for judicial security reform. Her story is not isolated; judges across jurisdictions—from municipal courts to federal benches— have reported increasing levels of harassment and threats.
The threat to judicial safety is not always tied to controversial rulings or high-profile cases. Sometimes, it is the randomness of violence that underscores the need for greater protection. In 2015, U.S. District Judge Terrence Berg of Michigan was shot in the leg during an attempted robbery outside his Detroit home.3 Although the attack was not related to his judicial duties, it served as a sobering reminder that judges, by virtue of their public service, can become targets even in the ordinary course of daily life.
The incident sparked calls for broader security measures and greater
awareness of the personal risks faced by those who serve on the bench. Judge Berg’s experience highlighted the reality that threats to the judiciary need not be case-specific to be dangerous—and that comprehensive safety strategies must account for both targeted and incidental threats.
In 2023, the U.S. Marshals Service tracked more than 4,500 threats and inappropriate communications directed at federal judges.4 State judges, who often lack comparable protection, face similar threats with fewer resources.
THE CHILLING EFFECT ON JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
When judges are threatened, democracy itself is threatened. Threats and intimidation not only endanger lives but also erode the independence of the judiciary. Judges may feel compelled to recuse themselves from cases for personal safety reasons, which can delay justice and increase the burden on the court system. In the worst cases, threats may exert subtle or overt pressure on judicial decisions.
Even the perception that a judge might be influenced by threats undermines public trust in the legal system. If litigants believe that intimidation works, it sets a dangerous precedent.
ADDRESSING THE MODERN DIMENSIONS OF THREAT
Technology has added new dimensions to the threats judges face. Personal information—addresses, phone numbers, emails, and even family members’ details—can be harvested and disseminated with ease. Social media platforms have become fertile ground for harassment and incitement.
Doxing, the malicious publication of private information online, is a particularly insidious threat. Yet many judicial officers lack the tools or legal authority to remove such information promptly.
Cybersecurity vulnerabilities compound the risk. Judges often communicate electronically, manage sensitive case files, and operate from home offices. Any breach could expose them to reputational harm and physical danger.
THE PATCHWORK OF PROTECTION
Judicial protection policies vary widely across jurisdictions, creating a patchwork of measures that are inconsistent and often inadequate. Federal judges benefit from the protective services of the U.S. Marshals Service, including threat assessments, courthouse security, and in some cases, home security improvements.5
State and local judges—who handle the vast majority of cases in the American legal system—often lack comparable support.
LEGISLATIVE AND INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES
In 2022, Congress passed the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, authorizing federal protections and protocols to limit access to judges’ personal information.6 Several states have followed suit, crafting laws to allow judges to remove or obscure personal information from public records and commercial data aggregators.
Judicial councils and bar associations have also mobilized around these issues. In Michigan, the State Bar of Michigan is championing passage of the Judicial Protection Act, which would permit a state or tribal judge to request that a public body or private person not publicly disclose personal information about them and about their immediate family.7 This would ensure that state-level judges in Michigan have the same protection currently provided by federal law to their federal colleagues.
The proposed legislation was introduced in both the House (HB 4397)8 and Senate (SB 82)9, and it already has passed the Senate.10 It also is expected to also win support in the House. The measure is supported by the State Bar of Michigan, State Court Administrative Office, Michigan Judges Association, Michigan District Judges Association, and the Michigan Probate Judges Association.
HB 4397 and SB 82 reflect Michigan’s recognition that judicial privacy is integral to judicial independence. If enacted, they could serve as a model for similar legislation nationwide.
THE ROLE OF THE LEGAL COMMUNITY
Bar associations and legal organizations are uniquely positioned to champion judicial security. Through legislative advocacy, professional development, and public engagement, the legal community can help ensure the judiciary remains protected and respected.
Attorneys and court personnel must also be proactive in recognizing threats and cooperating with security professionals to protect the courts and their personnel.
PROTECTING JUDICIAL FAMILIES
The threats judges face often extend to their families. A secure home environment, school safety plans for children, and awareness training for family members are critical components of judicial security. Programs offering physical protection and emotional support to family members must be prioritized.
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TOLL
Judicial service under threat can result in mental health impacts, including anxiety, hypervigilance, and burnout. Confidential access to counseling, peer support, and trauma resources is essential to maintaining a healthy and effective judiciary.
REAFFIRMING OUR COMMITMENT TO JUSTICE
Protecting judges is a constitutional necessity. Judicial officers must be able to serve without fear or coercion. Ensuring their safety reinforces the public’s trust in the courts and strengthens the rule of law.
As John Adams so eloquently noted, the “dignity and stability” of our institutions rest upon a judiciary that is skilled, upright, and independent.11 Without adequate security, that independence is at risk.
CONCLUSION
The rising threats against judges are not merely personal—they are systemic. Judicial safety is foundational to judicial independence, which in turn upholds the rule of law and democratic governance. In an age of political polarization, technological vulnerability, and increasing public hostility, protecting those who administer justice is both a moral imperative and a civic duty.
Michigan’s legislative efforts demonstrate that progress is possible when we collectively acknowledge the magnitude of the threat and act decisively. From courthouse security to digital privacy, and from federal protections to local implementation, the call to action is clear: secure the judiciary, secure democracy.
As threats to judicial officers grow more complex and aggressive, our response must be equally sophisticated, coordinated, and unwavering. Ensuring the safety of the judiciary is a collective responsibility—one that demands the engagement of the entire legal community and the broader public. The sanctity of the rule of law depends on it.