Panos Anastasiou, 77, an Alaska man charged with threatening to torture and assassinate six Supreme Court justices and some of their family members, has reached a plea deal with federal prosecutors, according to a court filing on Tuesday.
Anastasiou had pleaded not guilty when he was first charged in 2024. The filing indicates he intends to change his plea pursuant to a written plea agreement, though the document does not specify which charges he plans to plead guilty to or other terms of the agreement. Any plea deal must be approved by U.S. District Judge Aaron Peterson, a Trump appointee who is assigned to the case.
Federal prosecutors accuse Anastasiou of submitting hundreds of messages to the Supreme Court online, many containing violent threats. According to charging documents, some messages were sent following the high court's decision that then-former President Trump was entitled to broad criminal immunity.
Less than two hours after that ruling, Anastasiou allegedly threatened to torture and execute six unnamed justices by assassination. He continued to send threats involving drowning, shooting, strangling and lynching, according to the charging documents. Some messages also allegedly included threats against family members of the justices.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative Republicans and right-leaning legal organizations have condemned threats against Supreme Court justices as unacceptable attacks on the judicial system. Many on the right have emphasized that violence or threats against any member of the judiciary constitute a threat to American democracy itself.
The Federalist Society and other conservative legal groups have called for maximum prosecution of individuals who threaten judges. Republican lawmakers have demanded improved security for Supreme Court justices, with some pointing to the 2022 assassination attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh as evidence of the seriousness of the threat.
Conservative commentators have sometimes connected such threats to what they describe as left-wing rhetoric about the court, arguing that political opponents of the court's conservative majority bear some responsibility for creating a hostile environment. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has been among those calling for tougher responses to threats against judges.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive legal advocates and Democratic lawmakers have long emphasized the importance of protecting the judiciary from violence and intimidation. Many on the left have pointed to rising threats against judges as a reflection of increasing political polarization in the United States.
Organizations such as the American Constitution Society have called for enhanced security measures for Supreme Court justices, arguing that the court's decisions on contentious issues naturally invite backlash. Some progressive commentators have noted that while threats of violence are never acceptable, the rise in such incidents underscores the stakes involved in high-profile court decisions.
Democratic lawmakers have also called for investigations into the root causes of threats against the judiciary, including examining how political rhetoric may contribute to an atmosphere of extremism. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) has previously said that threats against judges represent a direct attack on the rule of law.
What the Numbers Show
The Anastasiou case comes amid a sharp increase in threats against judges and Supreme Court justices. According to U.S. Marshals Service data, there have already been 256 threats against judges in the first half of this fiscal year.
Anastasiou faces 26 charges in total, including threats against a federal judge, making threats in interstate commerce, stalking and possessing a firearm while a felon. Law enforcement said they found him with a Beretta 92 handgun when he was arrested.
Last year, a defendant pleaded guilty to attempting to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh at his home in 2022. That defendant received an eight-year sentence, which sparked outcry from the Justice Department, which had requested far greater punishment. The department is due to file its written arguments to the appeals court by next week.
The Bottom Line
The plea deal in the Anastasiou case marks another development in the ongoing challenge of addressing threats against the federal judiciary. While both political sides have condemned such threats, they have sometimes differed on how to address the underlying causes and appropriate responses.
The case is part of a broader set of criminal prosecutions against defendants accused of threatening Supreme Court justices. The rise in threats has made security a prime concern for the judiciary, prompting ongoing discussions about resource allocation for court protection.
Judge Peterson must approve any plea agreement before it is finalized. The case will likely continue to draw attention as courts balance the need for security with broader questions about political discourse and judicial independence.