Federal judges are increasingly equipping their courtrooms with panic buttons and hiring private security as reports of threats against the judiciary continue to rise, according to multiple accounts from judicial officials and court administrators.
The heightened security measures come as judges across the country report a surge in threatening communications and intimidation attempts, particularly following high-profile decisions on politically sensitive cases. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has acknowledged the trend while declining to provide specific statistics on threat incidents.
What the Right Is Saying
Republican legislators and conservative legal organizations maintain that criticism of court decisions is protected speech that forms a vital part of democratic discourse. They argue that most Americans who disagree with judicial rulings do so through lawful means.
"The vast majority of political speech about courts, even when heated, falls well within the bounds of protected First Amendment activity," said a spokesperson for the Federalist Society. "It is important to distinguish between vigorous debate and actual threats, which everyone agrees are unacceptable."
Some conservative commentators have pushed back on characterizing standard political criticism as contributing to judicial threats. They note that judges themselves have long enjoyed security protections and that adding additional measures does not necessarily indicate a new or unique threat environment.
"The judiciary has always had security concerns given its role in the constitutional system," said a Republican congressional aide familiar with judiciary funding discussions. "This is about ensuring courts can function, not about any particular political climate."
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic lawmakers and civil rights advocates argue that the security concerns reflect broader tensions around the role of the judiciary in American democracy. Senator Dick Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said courts must have adequate resources to protect judges who serve as neutral arbiters of law.
Progressive groups contend that political rhetoric targeting "activist judges" has contributed to an environment where some individuals feel emboldened to threaten judicial officials. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights called for bipartisan condemnation of language that could be interpreted as authorizing threats against courts.
"Judges are being asked to render decisions on the most contentious issues in American life, and they deserve to do so without fear for their personal safety or that of their families," said a spokesperson for the American Constitution Society. The group has advocated for increased funding for judicial security through supplemental appropriations.
What the Numbers Show
According to data from the U.S. Marshals Service, which provides protection for federal judges, threat investigations involving judicial officials have increased in recent years, though precise year-over-year comparisons are complicated by changes in reporting methodology.
Congress has appropriated approximately $70 million annually for judicial security in recent budget cycles, with supplemental funding available through the Judicial Security Act for courts facing elevated threats. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reported that panic button installations have expanded to cover a significant portion of federal courtrooms nationwide.
A Government Accountability Office review found that while violent incidents targeting judges remain rare, verbal threats and harassment have risen notably since 2020. The report recommended expanding mental health resources and threat assessment capabilities for courts at all levels.
The FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit has increased its engagement with the judiciary on prevention strategies, though officials caution that identifying credible threats among thousands of communications remains challenging.
The Bottom Line
Federal judges are adapting their security practices in response to what many describe as an elevated threat environment. Whether this represents a fundamental shift or a continuation of historical patterns depends partly on how one interprets the available data and political context.
Congress will likely face pressure to increase judicial security funding in upcoming budget negotiations, with both parties generally supporting measures that protect the judiciary's independence without impinging on First Amendment rights.
Courts officials say they are working to balance transparency about security challenges with operational details that could compromise protective measures. A fuller picture of threat trends is expected when the Administrative Office releases its next annual report on judicial security.