According to a new report from the Brennan Center for Justice, federal judges are facing a sharp uptick in personal threats and vitriol directed their way. A federal district judge received more than 700 threatening phone calls to their chambers after ruling on an immigration enforcement case brought by the second Trump administration.
The threats came after someone posted the judge’s home floor plan online. Fearing for their family’s safety, the judge spent a substantial sum of their own money to build a safe room and fortify their house. One sitting judge granted anonymity said they are “very concerned [and] my wife is definitely concerned” about their safety. These concerns “feel . . . very much a part of the enterprise.”
Authored by Alicia Bannon, Gowri Ramachandran, Yasmin Abusaif, Celina Avalos Jaramillo, Eliazar Chacha, and Stephen Spaulding, the report draws on interviews with 35 sitting and retired federal judges across 10 of the 12 regional circuits.
The judges describe an increasingly hostile environment. According to the federal judiciary’s fiscal year 2027 congressional budget summary, security incidents involving judges that the US Marshals Service classified as significant rose 57% in fiscal year 2025 and are on pace to climb further. Justice Elena Kagan told the Senate in July 2026 that the Supreme Court Police anticipated a 38% increase in threats against the justices in 2026, following a 25% rise the year before.
The report traces the surge to several overlapping causes. Judges point to a proliferation of contentious, high-profile litigation, including cases stemming from the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and more than 850 lawsuits challenging Trump administration policies, over 150 of which resulted in at least a partial court block.
They also cite escalating rhetoric from political leaders, including the president, members of Congress, and senior officials who have accused judges of bias without evidence. Judge William G. Young said that “in 40 years of judicial service, I have never experienced an executive branch that is so overtly hostile to the federal judiciary — top to bottom.”
People are now using a disturbing new intimidation tactic known as pizza doxing, in which unsolicited deliveries arrived at judges’ homes, often placed in the name of Daniel Anderl, the son of Judge Esther Salas who was murdered in a 2020 attack targeting her.
A May 2025 study previously found that violent or impeachment-related posts targeting federal judges on social media rose 324% between May 2024 and March 2025.
The consequences extend well beyond the courthouse. Many judges report paying out of pocket for private security, restricting their children’s routines, and worrying that the value of accepting government protection could expose them to personal tax liability.
Some acknowledge to the authors that they have considered leaving the bench. Others said fear of the personal toll could deter qualified candidates from seeking judicial office in the first place. Judges of color and women describe disproportionately severe threats tied to their identities.
But the report also noted that nearly every sitting judge interviewed insists the threats have not swayed their rulings, even as many voice concern about whether that trend will hold if the pressure continues to build.
Judges assess the existing security infrastructure as strained. They point to outdated courthouse screening equipment, chronic underfunding, and gaps in communication with the Marshals Service during active investigations. A majority also expresses concern that housing the Marshals Service within the Department of Justice leaves judicial protection vulnerable to interference from the same executive branch that is, in many cases, a party to the underlying disputes.
The Trump administration has reassigned marshals from judicial security duties to assist with immigration enforcement, according to the report, further straining an already limited workforce.
The report closes with a set of policy recommendations. It calls on Congress to fully fund judicial security requests, which Congress increased from $750 million in fiscal year 2025 to $892 million in fiscal year 2026, and to clarify that judges who accept additional protection would not face personal tax liability for the benefit. It urges lawmakers to strengthen the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act to establish automatic, nationwide protections for judges’ personal information rather than relying on a patchwork of state opt-out systems.
The authors also recommend that the Administrative Office of the US Courts convene a blue-ribbon commission to study whether judicial security functions should move from the executive branch into the judiciary itself, modeled in part on the Supreme Court’s own police force. Additional recommendations address training for judges and court staff, stronger content policies at social media companies to curb doxing and harassment, and expanded civic education efforts aimed at helping the public understand the judiciary’s role. Taken together, the report argues, these measures are necessary not only to protect individual judges but to preserve the independence of the federal bench itself.
