On March 11, around fifty judges met in Washington for the biannual meeting of the judicial conference, which oversees the administration of the federal courts. It was the first time that the conference has met since President Trump took over the White House.
In the midst of discussion on staff levels and long -term planning, judges’ conversations were concentrated, to an unusual degree, on the growing threats against judges and their safety, said several people who attended the collection.
According to judge Richard J. Sullivan, the president of the judicial security committee of the conference, judge Richard J. Sullivan, president of the judicial security committee of the conference, raised a scenario that the weeks previously felt of dystopian fiction, according to three familiar officials with the remarks, who spoke of the state of the judges?
The American service Marshals, which, by law, oversees the security of the judiciary, is part of the Ministry of Justice, that Mr. Trump controls directly in a way that no president has since the Watergate scandal.
Judge Sullivan noted that Mr. Trump had stripped the security protections of Mike Pompeo, his former secretary of state, and John Bolton, his former national security advisor. The federal judiciary, also a recent objective of the anger of Mr. Trump, be the next one?
Judge Sullivan, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, then raised to an appeal judgment by Mr. Trump, referred questions about his closed -door remarks to the administrative office of the American courts, who declared “his total confidence in the leaders of the judicial security”.
There is no evidence that Mr. Trump planned to revoke the security of judges. But the remarks of judge Sullivan were an extraordinary sign of the extent of the anxiety of the judges in the face of the threats facing the federal bench. And they highlight an increasing discomfort of the judges according to which their security is managed by an agency which, through the Attorney General, ultimately responds to the president and whose funding, in their opinion, did not follow the pace of increasing threats.
“Cutting all the security of a judge or a courthouse – things like it did not happen, and I do not expect it to do so,” said Jeremy Fogel, a retired federal judge who directs the Berkeley Judicial Institute of the University of California in Berkeley, and is in frequent contact with the current judges. “But, you never know. Because it is right to say that limits are tested everywhere. The judges fear that it will happen.”
The Marshals service declared in a press release that it had acted “in the orientation of the federal courts” and “carry out all the legitimate orders of the Federal Court”. The integrity of the judicial process said the press release depends on “the protection of judges, jurors and witnesses”.
Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, said Trump’s decision to go beyond Mr. Pompeo’s security and Mr. Bolton, two former officials, had no impact on his approach to the judges in place. He called the concerns that the president deprives judges of their “speculation” security which was “dangerous and irresponsible”.
Founded in 1789, US Marshals Service has a wide range of laws for applying the law, in addition to its central function to support the judiciary. There are now 94 American marshal positions appointed by the presidency and confirmed by the Senate, one for each judicial district. The agency director reports to the deputy prosecutor.
The concerns concerning which supervises the marshals come as the threats against the judges have increased, expanding the charges on the service.
The statistics published by the agency show that the number of judges targeted by threats has more than doubled from 2019 to 2024, before Mr. Trump was rejected. During these years, he challenged the result of the 2020 elections in court, and the Supreme Court canceled ROE v. Wade, the decision that made access to abortion a constitutional right. In June 2022, after the decision of the Supreme Court disclosed, an armed man tried to assassinate the Brett judge Mr. Kavanaugh at his home.
In his end -of -year report for 2024, chief judge John G. Roberts Jr. noted “a significant increase in threats identified at all levels of judicial power”.
Since Trump took office in January, he and his supporters insulted individual judges on social networks and called their dismissal in response to the decisions they do not like. In a message published on Easter, Mr. Trump referred to “weak and ineffective judges” which allow a “sinister attack of our nation to continue” with regard to immigration.
Judges and family members have reported in recent weeks of false threats of bombs in their mailboxes. In mid-April, dozens of pizzas were sent anonymously to judges and family members at home, a way to point out that your enemy knows where you live.
According to Ron Zayas, director general of Ironwall, a company that contracts district courts, state courts and certain individual judges to provide data and security protection services to judges and other officials, the number of judges using its services for emergency protection is more than four times the average number for last year. He said 40 judges also used their own money to strengthen their security with Ironwall, twice as much as on January 1.
In a letter to the congress dated April 10, judge Robert J. Conrad Jr., who heads the administrative office of the American courts, complained that the financing of the security of the courts remained frozen in 2023 during the financial year 2025 “at a time when the threats against the federal judges and the courts of court.” The judges have issued similar warnings for years.
The total amount spent remained almost stable, increased to $ 1.34 billion in 2024, against $ 1.26 billion in 2022, according to statistics from the administrative and marshal, despite the increases in inflation and the remuneration of staff.
At the same time, the loads on the service have increased.
In recent years, American marshals have declared in a statement, they have started to help protect the houses of the judges of the Supreme Court, whose security is mainly managed by the Marshal’s office of the distinct Supreme Court. Last summer, an American marshal posted outside the house of judge Sonia Sotomayor in Washington pulled and injured an armed man in an attempted car diversion.
In January, the Trump administration gave the marshals, as well as other law enforcement organizations, the new power to enforce immigration laws. This decision encouraged Judge Edmond E. Chang, who chairs the criminal conference criminal law committee, to write a note to all district and magistrate judges warning of the potential impact on the ability of marshals to protect them. (Judge Chang refused to comment; his service note was reported earlier by Reuters.)
In addition to protecting the life of judges, American law indicates that the “role and mission” of the marshals is “to obey, execute and apply all the ordinances” of the federal courts. The application of judicial orders may result in the taxation of fines and imprisonment for anyone who judges as an outrage in court, including, in theory, those responsible for the executive branch.
The posture of the Trump administration in some cases raises the possibility that the already extended marshals can emerge as a crucial referee between the branches. In the courtroom, the lawyers of the Ministry of Justice got closer to openly flout the judicial orders arising from the illegal expulsion to a prison in Salvador of a group of nearly 140 Vénezuelans and Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, whose managers of the move admitted an “administrative error”. Two judges responded by opening up opening requests that could conduct the administration officials held by the court.
“What is happening if the marshals are sentenced to submitting a quotation to an agency chief who challenged a court order?” Asked Paul W. Grimm, a retired federal judge who heads the Bolch Judicial Institute of the Duke University. “Will they do this? The question of who the marshal service owes their allegiance will be put to the test in the not too distant future, I suspect. “
The concern about monitoring the marshal service is not new. A 1982 report by the Government of the Government of responsibility qualified the Marshals surveillance system “an impracticable management condition”. As a possible solution, he proposed legislation to move the control of marshals to the judiciary.
Some members of the congress began to offer a similar solution.
“Do you think you could better protect judges if your safety was more independent?” Representative Eric Swalwell, Democrat of California, asked a federal judge testifying on behalf of the judicial conference during a hearing in February, a few days before the Sullivan judge.
Republican representative Darrell Issa, a republican of California, replied that he considered the question of legitimate independent surveillance. The judge replied that the conference would examine the issue.
In an interview, Mr. Swalwell said he was writing legislation that would take charge of his own security.
Last month, Ronald Davis, who directed the agency under President Joseph R. Biden Jr., issued a striking warning to LinkedIn of “a constitutional crisis if a president refuses to enforce or comply with an order from the Federal Court”. He also proposed measures to isolate the marshals of potential interference by the executive power.
In the meantime, the immediate objective of the administration for the marshal service may be to reduce it.
On April 15, Mark P. Pittella, agency’s acting director, sent a letter to more than 5,000 service employees in the context of staff reduction measures associated with the Elon Musk project, known as the Government Ministry of efficiency, offering them the possibility of resigning and being eligible for more than four months of administrative leave with complete remuneration. In the letter, obtained by the New York Times, Mr. Pittella wrote that agency leaders would examine requests to ensure that they did not “influence the critical requirements of the USMS mission”.
But a spokesperson for the service said that the offer was open to employees in all areas of responsibility, including marshals responsible for protecting judges.
