When Threats Become “Ordinary,” We Should Ask Why

What was once unthinkable is now being described by sitting judges as almost routine. That alone should chill every American. Federal judges are now speaking publicly about death threats, harassment, intimidation — and the growing sense that such attacks are becoming “ordinary.”

Let that word sit for a moment: ordinary.

The U.S. Marshals Service reported hundreds of threats against members of the judiciary in the past year alone. This is not political noise. It is real, and it is dangerous.

Chief Justice John Roberts has warned that personal hostility toward judges “has got to stop.” And he’s right. A system of law cannot function if those entrusted to interpret it are looking over their shoulders, wondering whether a ruling will follow them home.

But here is the harder question — the one few in polite circles want to ask:

How did we get here?

Because while threats against judges are indefensible, pretending they exist in a vacuum is just as dangerous.

Over time, many Americans have watched decisions that feel less like neutral applications of law and more like exercises of raw judicial power. Sweeping rulings. Expansive interpretations. At times, outcomes that appear disconnected from the plain reading of statutes or the will of elected bodies.

Fair or not, that perception has taken root.

And perception matters.

When courts are seen — rightly or wrongly — as political actors rather than impartial arbiters, public trust begins to erode. And when trust erodes, frustration grows. That frustration, in a healthy society, should be channeled into lawful dissent, appeals, and elections.

But we are not always a healthy society anymore.

So the question isn’t whether threats are wrong. They are.

The question is whether the judiciary can ignore the environment it operates in — an environment shaped, in part, by its own actions.

Criticism is not intimidation. Accountability is not harassment. And asking whether judicial behavior has contributed to rising anger is not an attack on the rule of law — it is a defense of it.

Because if judges want respect, the system must not only be independent — it must be seen as legitimate.

That legitimacy is not enforced by security detail.

It is earned, case by case, decision by decision.

And once lost, it is very hard to restore.