An alarming escalation of threats against federal judges has sent shockwaves through the US legal system, highlighting a concerning erosion of judicial independence. This perilous trend gained tragic notoriety with the 2020 murder of Daniel Anderl, the 20-year-old son of District Judge Esther Salas, by a disgruntled litigant. His death served as a grim precursor to a surge in targeted intimidation tactics against jurists across the nation.
Years later, this campaign of harassment has manifested in sinister forms, including “pizza doxings” – unsolicited food deliveries to judges’ homes, often under Daniel Anderl’s name. This specific tactic, reported in over 100 cases since 2024, is not a random act but a coordinated effort to unnerve and threaten judges and their families, with some judges receiving deliveries at their adult children’s residences in different cities, a clear message of “we know where you live.”
The severity of these threats has prompted an unusual public discourse from members of the federal judiciary, who traditionally maintain a stoic silence outside of their rulings. During a notable discussion organized by Speak Up for Justice, a nonpartisan group supporting an independent judiciary, judges like District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island openly shared experiences of menacing calls and “pizza doxings,” underscoring the profound personal toll of this escalating aggression.
A significant driver of this intensified hostile climate, according to many jurists, is the heightened political rhetoric emanating from prominent figures. Without directly naming him, Judge Salas explicitly called upon former President Trump and his allies to temper their public criticism of the judiciary, asserting that their “demonizing” language actively invites harm and imperils the very fabric of the US legal system.
Beyond the “pizza doxings,” judges have faced direct threats leading to alarming security incidents, such as a police SWAT team responding to a false report of an attack at District Judge John C. Coughenour of Washington’s home after a ruling unfavorable to a previous administration’s agenda. These incidents reveal a disturbing pattern of personal targeting designed to intimidate judges and influence their decisions, posing a grave challenge to their safety and impartiality.
The collective experience of these judges points to a deeply troubling lack of condemnation from Washington, despite the clear, coordinated nature of the attacks. Judge Salas, despite her own politically diverse judicial background, expressed dismay at the absence of unified political condemnation, lamenting that this atmosphere is akin to a “bonfire” being fueled by “accelerants” from the current administration, further endangering those who uphold the rule of law.
In response to the growing threats, legislative measures like the Daniel Anderl law were enacted in 2022, enabling judges to pursue the removal of their identifying information from online platforms. Furthermore, over five dozen judges who have issued rulings against a former president have been granted enhanced online protection. However, the political pressure extends beyond physical threats, with a former Department of Justice taking extraordinary steps like suing all federal judges in Maryland over immigration rules and filing a complaint against judges for comments made at judicial conferences, hinting at potential non-compliance with judicial orders.
The chilling effect of these persistent threats and political pressures is evident, as many federal judges, appointed by presidents from across the political spectrum, express profound concerns but are hesitant to speak out publicly. This fear of retribution, including potential judicial complaints or political backlash, further underscores the urgent need for robust protections and a renewed commitment to safeguarding the independence and integrity of the federal judiciary against unprecedented external pressures.
