Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday warned that judges nationwide are under increasing threat from violence, intimidation, disinformation and officials threatening to defy lawful court decisions.
Marshals Service reported that threats against judges have tripled over the last decade, and they investigated more than 1,300 incidents in 2022.
Advertisement Roberts did not mention public officials by name, but he said some had tried to undermine rulings by falsely claiming decisions were motivated by political bias.
The Supreme Court is at a crossroads after facing a turbulent year and on the eve of what could be another as President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
Advertisement Story continues below advertisement A second Trump term is likely to pose fresh tests for the court.
John G., Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Roberts, Jr. On Tuesday, officials issued a warning that judges across the country are increasingly being threatened by acts of violence, intimidation, misinformation, and threats to overturn legal court rulings.
Strong criticism of court decisions is a normal part of American civic life, according to Roberts, but some recent attacks have gone too far in threatening to erode the independence that judges need to make unbiased decisions.
In his yearly report on the condition of the country’s judiciary, Roberts stated that “violence, intimidation, and defiance directed at judges because of their work undermine our Republic, and are wholly unacceptable.”.
Following a sharp increase in threats against judges and other public officials, the justice’s message comes as the country’s divisive politics have become more contentious. The U. S. . Over the past ten years, threats against judges have increased threefold, according to the Marshals Service, which looked into over 1,300 cases in 2022.
Due to controversial rulings and a series of disputes regarding the justices’ ethics, the Supreme Court has recently been the target of intense public criticism and occasionally threats.
Proceed to Transition 47.
In his year-end message, Roberts bemoaned the murders of state judges and federal judges’ families in recent decades as signs of the growing threats facing judicial officers, but he made no mention of the court’s recent decisions or ethics disputes.
“These tragic events underscore the vulnerability of judges who sign their names to the decisions they make every day and go home every night to communities where they continue to be involved as concerned citizens, volunteers, and neighbors,” Roberts wrote. Judges shouldn’t hide, and they can’t. “.”.
Roberts also issued a warning about strategies that do not involve violence, such as disgruntled litigants urging people to contact a judge online, others disclosing judges’ personal information, and activist organizations posting judges’ locations for purpose of protest.
Although Roberts did not specifically name any public officials, he claimed that some had attempted to sabotage decisions by making untrue claims that they were driven by political bias. Additionally, he wrote that misinformation regarding rulings, which is frequently disseminated on social media, is a serious issue that calls for greater civic education.
After a tumultuous year and the start of what could be another as President-elect Donald Trump assumes office, the Supreme Court finds itself at a turning point.
The court rendered highly contentious rulings in 2024 that limited the authority of federal agencies, granted Trump and other presidents broad immunity from prosecution for official acts, and permitted Trump to continue running for president in Colorado next November.
There were more ethical disputes at the court as well.
The flags that some Jan adopted were politically charged. Six rioters flew outside Justice Samuel A.’s residences. Alito Jr. raised concerns regarding his objectivity. In December, a report by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee disclosed that Texas billionaire Harlan Crow had funded Justice Clarence Thomas’s undisclosed jet and yacht travel.
It is probable that a second Trump term will present new challenges for the court. Trump has vowed to fire thousands of federal employees, impose crippling tariffs on foreign goods, and deport masses of immigrants. It is probable that those actions will be contested in court and may eventually come before the justices.
Michael J. Professor Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina School of Law stated that Trump’s policy goals may push the boundaries, which could cause friction with the high court he remade by selecting three conservative justices in his first term.
Although the court won’t be completely captive, Gerhardt stated that it will be open to much of what the Trump Administration wishes to accomplish.
According to Gerhardt, he anticipates that the court’s conservative supermajority, which stands at 6-3, will keep vigorously advancing the law to the right. “After several terms, the contours of the court’s jurisprudence—limiting abortion, extending the role of religion in public life, and limiting the power of federal agencies—have become clearer,” he said.
“This court is on a mission.”. Gerhardt stated that its goal is to reinterpret constitutional law.
In the upcoming weeks, the court may rule on a significant TikTok case. The issue of whether a law mandating that the well-known social media company remove its Chinese ownership or shut down in the US infringes on users’ First Amendment rights will be decided by the justices.
The serious concerns arise as a recent Gallup poll revealed that public trust in the judiciary as a whole has drastically declined, distinguishing the US from other affluent countries. According to the survey, Americans’ trust in the legal system has decreased from nearly 60% in 2020 to 35% now.
Lydia Saad, director of Gallup’s U. S. . social research, claimed that the drop was startling because the poll had only discovered comparable declines in nations going through political or economic crises, like Venezuela’s economic collapse, Syria’s civil war, or Myanmar’s return to military rule in 2021.
The survey did not specifically ask participants why they no longer trusted the legal system. According to Saad, the data suggests that the sentiment is widespread across political parties and was likely sparked by Trump’s high-profile prosecutions, which included his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business documents in a New York court. Those prosecutions were viewed as political by many Republicans.
According to Saad, the Supreme Court’s ruling to give Trump and other presidents broad immunity from prosecution for official acts and to keep Trump on the Colorado presidential ballot in 2024 may be the reason for Democrats’ disenchantment. Saad added that she believes the left may have been irritated by Trump’s prosecutions’ delays and dismissals.
“It looks like Republicans were initially driving the decline, perhaps because they disagreed with the criminal charges and cases against President Trump,” Saad stated. “But more recently, there has been a double whammy as Democrats’ trust in the courts has also declined. “”.
According to separate Gallup polling, as of September, 44% of respondents approved of the Supreme Court and 51% expressed disapproval, meaning that public support for the court is still hovering around record lows.
According to Berkeley Judicial Institute executive director and former federal judge Jeremy Fogel, the Supreme Court could contribute to its reputational restoration by enacting a more stringent code of ethics and increasing openness about its internal workings. Despite adopting an ethics code last year, the high court has come under fire for not having an enforcement mechanism.
“I think it would be fantastic if the chief could list some constructive ways the Court could try to highlight the value of its institutional reputation,” Fogel stated. The court should, in my opinion, serve as a model for proper behavior and high standards. Nowadays, a sizable majority of people don’t think that’s the case. “”.
