“Four areas of illegitimate activity … threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends,” U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts warned in his 2024 year-end report. He identified “(1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments” as the top behaviors that threaten to undermine the “critical function” courts perform in a democracy.
Roberts cited a “significant uptick in identified threats” against the judiciary. According to U.S. Marshals Service statistics, he said, hostile threats have more than tripled over the past decade, and the marshals have investigated more than 1,000 serious threats against federal judges in just the past five years, resulting in approximately 50 criminal indictments. Fortunately, the marshals have successfully countered these threats—so far—but this does not negate the fact that, “in extreme cases, judicial officers have been issued bulletproof vests for public events.”
This leads into the second related activity that Roberts criticized, intimidation. He observed that the practice of “doxing … can lead to a flood of angry, profane phone calls to the judge’s office or home,” or even visits. “Activist groups intent on harassing judges have gone so far as to offer financial incentives for posting the location of certain judicial officers,” Roberts added.
Left-wing activists aggressively exploited “doxing” during the summer of 2022, after a draft opinion for the Dobbs case was leaked. Activists illegally published the home addresses of the six conservative-leaning Supreme Court justices online. Many more activists joined a harassment campaign that organized weekly protests at each of the justices’ homes, in an unsuccessful attempt to exhaust them into changing their position. Most concerningly, a California activist traveled to Maryland with weapons and gear to kidnap and assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, before he lost his nerve and called the police on himself.
Roberts next addressed “disinformation.” In contrast with the irresponsible way the Biden administration employed the term, he provided a specific example and an appropriate response. “At its most basic level, distortion of the factual or legal basis for a ruling can undermine confidence in the court system,” Roberts wrote, perhaps thinking of President Joe Biden accusing the court of taking sides in a spending battle when it struck down his student loan amnesty with no basis in law.
“Our branch is peculiarly ill-suited to combat this problem,” Roberts lamented, “because judges typically speak only through their decisions. We do not call press conferences or generally issue rebuttals.” Instead, Roberts recommended “a renewed emphasis on civic education as the best antidote for combating the epidemic of misinformation.”
Finally, Roberts addressed the recent rise in “defiance of judgments lawfully entered by courts.” Only weeks ago, county election officials in Pennsylvania were openly defying their state supreme court in a fruitless effort to preserve Bob Casey’s seat in the U.S. Senate. In 2023, federal lawmakers—including Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.; and Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C.—urged the Biden administration to ignore a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that halted a Biden administration rule relaxing restrictions on the abortion drug mifepristone. The Biden administration ignored those calls and ultimately won a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court.
“It is not in the nature of judicial work to make everyone happy. Most cases have a winner and a loser. Every administration suffers defeats in the court system—sometimes in cases with major ramifications for executive or legislative power or other consequential topics,” reflected Roberts. “Within the past few years, however, elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings. These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected.”
“At the end of the day, judges perform a critical function in our democracy. Since the beginning of the Republic, the rulings of judges have shaped the Nation’s development and checked the excesses of the other branches,” Roberts continued. “But judicial independence is undermined unless the other branches are firm in their responsibility to enforce the court’s decrees.”
Lest he be misunderstood, Roberts clarified that the judicial independence he envisioned was not one that affronted free speech. “In a democracy—especially in one like ours, with robust First Amendment protections—criticism comes with the territory,” he said. “It can be healthy. As Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, ‘[a] natural consequence of life tenure should be the ability to benefit from informed criticism from legislators, the bar, academy, and the public.’” Rather, Roberts was concerned about “illegitimate” opposition to the judicial system, mostly consisting of lawless behavior.
“It should be no surprise that judicial rulings can provoke strong and passionate reactions. And those expressions of public sentiment—whether criticism or praise—are not threats to judicial independence,” he continued. “To the contrary, public engagement with the work of the courts results in a better-informed polity and a more robust democracy.” A strong court system should be a safeguard to America’s constitutional system, Roberts argued, and attempts to weaken the court are attacks on that system itself.
