May 26 2025
The threatened judiciary cannot rely on the police controlled by the White House.
In April, inexplicable pizza delivery started showing in private residences Of more than two dozen federal judges as well as their family members. We know that these undesirable deliveries were not a random prank, but a sinister threat, since many were made under the name of Daniel Ander, the son of a federal judge who was killed in 2020, protecting his parents from an angry trial. The message was clear: “We know where you live, we know where you live in the family and we can kill you and your loved ones at any time when we want.”
While the source of this campaign is still undisclosed, it occurred at a time when President Donald Trump and his administration are increasingly inciteing political anger against the judiciary – and Maga followers are responsible. With the Congress under the control of the Republicans and the Democratic Party leadership, which offers virtually no opposition, the judiciary became the main bastion of the institutional restriction of the Trump administration. Federal Judges ruled against the raft of Trump’s initiatives starting from Deportation of immigrants without proper process by politically motivated punishment Harvard University.
Responding to these setbacks, Trump administration attacked the judiciary with increasing rhetoric. Trump and his close advisor Elon Musk Or called both For inferior judges who should be impeachment, while Vice President JD Vance characterized adverse decisions as “illegal”. Justifies the arrest of federal judge Khan Dugan, Prosecutor General Bondi detach Fox News, “(Judge) are exhausted is all I can think about.
On Saturday, The Wall Street Journal report The fact that judges are not just experiencing that this inflammatory rhetoric causes an increasing number of threats they get, they also worry that the White House can use their control over the federal law enforcement agencies to reduce the necessary protection. The Supreme Court is protected by special police forces, but federal judges are generally in custody of the US Marshals, which responds to Bondi and ultimately Trump.
As depending on Journal:
Against the backdrop of tensions between the Trump administration and the judiciary, some federal judges are beginning to discuss the idea of managing their armed security forces.
The concept appeared in a number of meetings with closed doors in early March, when a group of approximately 50 judges met in Washington at a midfielding conference, a policy body for the federal judicial system. There, the members of the Security Committee talked about the threats arising as President Trump caused criticism of those who manage him.
The judges do not hurt. The immediate problem may be that the threats against the judges are steeply growing, but the deeper problem is that Donald Trump has a history of inciting political violence – and is still working hard to legitimize it. As you know, Trump reflected from the flame of the attack on January 6 on the Capitol. Most recently, he gave a pardon of more than 1,500 people who were convicted of participating in a coup attempt on January 6. In Trump’s White House, there is also Greenlit settlement of $ 5 million To the Ashley Babbit family, a riot killed by police on January 6. The white house of Trump Also promising The “difficult look” on the conviction of two men who planned in 2020 to assassinate the governor of Michigan Gretchen Whiter. The value of these actions is obvious: if you commit political violence against Trump and GoP enemies, the president will receive your back.
Current Issue
In essence, Trump creates a resolution structure and a legal system that has the right -wing violence of the state.
In the US constitutional theory, the judicial system, as well as the Congress, is obliged to check the President’s authorities. This theory always comes across the basic fact that the judicial system does not have an effective force for policy and should rely on other branches of the government to make its decisions. In 1832, the Supreme Court outlined doctrine about the sovereignty of the tribe in the decision of the indigenous Wunte against Georgia. President Andrew Jackson supposedly said, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him make him!” Although there is reason to doubt that Jackson was so stupid in his language that he was privately reflected in the sabotage of this decision.
In his first term, Trump brought a picture of Jackson to the Oval office as a way to claim the proximity to an earlier anti -system politician who ruled unequal norms. The open question is whether when the launch comes, Trump will make Jackson’s apocryphal story. If the courts still reduce Trump’s executive actions, or Trump says: “Roberts justice has made his decision, let him follow it?” Going on, or calls Trump on the mafia, he can attack the judges and say, “The courts have decided, let them protect it with their lives”?
Courts cannot defend themselves. They also cannot count on the US Marshals’ service to do this job because it is a Trump body.
The only legal avenue for the protection of the courts is the creation of a police officer from the president. To his merit, Senator New Jersey Cora Booker thought about it. How Wall Street Journal Reports:
On Thursday, the Senator of the Democratic Corus Booker from New Jersey introduced the legislation that would allow the main vessels and the court conference to appoint the head of the marshals, posting the courts responsible for their own security. In a statement, Booker stated that the legislation was necessary because Trump “made it clear to him with words and actions that he did not respect the law, court rulings, security of our judges or our institutions.”
“The double accountability of the marshals to the executive power and the judicial industry opens the way to the constitutional crisis,” Booker said.
Going beyond the exciting effort of Booker, the Democrats generally need to threaten Trump for courts a major political problem. One strong argument, which should be made on average 2026, is that the congress under the Republicans will not defend the judges, but the Democrats will. After the loss of Kamala Harris in 2024, the Democrats are reluctant to make Trump authoritarianism with the main political topic. This is a short species. The 2024 pro -democratic step fell because it was too abstract and combined with the party’s weakening to economic populism. But in the previous elections, in particular, the 2018 intermediate elections and the 2020 presidential election, the pro -democratic message (combined with a strong economic message) won. There is every reason to think that voters are particularly motivated, which appear for the medium-term Trump authoritarianism. Protecting the courts is a winning question when the Democrats had the courage to use it. If the judges who show the courage over Trump’s threats, the opposition party must find their own courage.
