Chief Justice Roberts warns of threats to judges in year-end report

Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday warned that judges nationwide are under increasing threat from violence, intimidation, disinformation and officials threatening to defy lawful court decisions.

Roberts said that robust criticism of judicial rulings is part of American civic life, but that some recent attacks had gone too far in threatening to undermine the independence necessary for judges to rule impartially.

“Violence, intimidation, and defiance directed at judges because of their work undermine our Republic, and are wholly unacceptable,” Roberts wrote in his annual report on the state of the nation’s judiciary.

The justice’s message follows a large jump in threats against judges and other public officials, as the nation’s polarized politics have taken an increasingly acrimonious turn. The U.S. Marshals Service reported that threats against judges have tripled over the last decade, and they investigated more than 1,300 incidents in 2022.

The Supreme Court has come in for harsh public criticism – and sometimes threats – in recent years, following contentious decisions and a string of controversies over the ethics of the justices.

Roberts did not mention the court’s recent rulings or ethics controversies in his year-end message, but he did lament the killings of state judges and family members of federal judges in recent decades as examples of the rising dangers facing judicial officers.

“These tragic events highlight the vulnerability of judges who sign their names to the decisions they render each day and return home each night to communities, where they remain involved as neighbors, volunteers, and concerned citizens,” Roberts wrote. “Judges cannot hide, nor should they.”

Roberts also warned of tactics that fall short of violence, including disappointed litigants urging people on the internet to contact a judge, others releasing judges’ personal information and activist groups posting the locations of judges for the purpose of protests.

Roberts did not mention public officials by name, but he said some had tried to undermine rulings by falsely claiming decisions were motivated by political bias. He also wrote that disinformation about rulings - often spread on social media - was a major problem requiring more civic education.

The Supreme Court is at a crossroads after facing a turbulent year and on the eve of what could be another as President-elect Donald Trump takes office.

During 2024, the court issued much-debated decisions granting Trump and other presidents broad immunity from being prosecuted for official acts, allowing Trump to remain on the ballot in Colorado as a presidential candidate in the November election, and curbing the power of federal agencies.

The court also faced more ethics controversies.

Politically charged flags adopted by some Jan. 6 rioters that were flying outside the homes of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. prompted questions about his impartiality. A report released in December by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee revealed undisclosed jet and yacht travel by Justice Clarence Thomas that was paid for by Texas billionaire Harlan Crow.

A second Trump term is likely to pose fresh tests for the court. Trump has pledged to deport large numbers of immigrants, impose crushing tariffs on foreign goods and fire thousands of federal workers. Those moves are likely to be challenged in court and could ultimately land before the justices.

Michael J. Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, said the boundary-pushing nature of Trump’s policy objectives could be a point of tension with the high court he remade by appointing three conservative justices during his first term.

“The court will be receptive to a lot of what the Trump Administration wants to do, but it’s not going to be wholly captive,” Gerhardt said.

Gerhardt said he expects the 6-3 conservative supermajority on the court to continue to aggressively push the law rightward. He said the contours of the court’s jurisprudence - restricting abortion, expanding the role of religion in public life and checking the power of federal agencies - have become clearer after several terms.

“This court is on a mission … . Its mission is to rework constitutional law,” Gerhardt said.

The court could decide a major case involving TikTok in the coming weeks. The justices will rule on whether a law requiring the popular social media platform to divest from Chinese ownership or be shuttered in the United States violates the First Amendment rights of users.

The weighty issues come as a recent Gallup poll showed public confidence in the judiciary as a whole has collapsed - setting the United States apart from other wealthy nations. The poll found that 35 percent of Americans have trust in the courts, down from nearly 60 percent in 2020.

Lydia Saad, Gallup’s director of U.S. social research, said the decline was striking because the poll has found similar drops only in countries experiencing economic or political crises, such as Myanmar’s return to military rule in 2021, Venezuela’s economic implosion and the civil war in Syria.

The poll did not directly ask respondents why they lost trust in the judiciary. Saad said the data indicates the sentiment stretches across the political spectrum and was probably driven by the high-profile prosecutions of Trump, including his conviction in a New York court on 34 counts of falsifying business documents. Many Republicans thought those prosecutions were political.

Saad said Democrats’ disaffection may have to do with the Supreme Court’s decision to grant Trump and other presidents broad immunity from prosecution for official acts and to allow Trump to remain on the 2024 presidential ballot in Colorado. Saad said she also thinks delays and dismissals of some of Trump’s prosecutions could have frustrated the left.

“It appears that initially Republicans were driving the decrease possibly because of their disagreement with criminal charges and the cases against President Trump,” Saad said. “But more recently Democrats’ confidence in the courts has also plunged, creating a double whammy.”

Separate polling by Gallup also has found that public approval of the Supreme Court remains mired near record lows, with 51 percent of respondents registering displeasure with the court and 44 percent approving, as of September.

Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge and the executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute, said the Supreme Court could help repair its reputation by adopting a stricter ethics code and more transparency about how it operates. The high court adopted an ethics code last year, but it has been criticized for lacking an enforcement mechanism.

“It would be great for the chief to identify some positive things the Court could do to try emphasize the importance of its institutional reputation,” Fogel said. “I think it’s important that the court be an exemplar of high standards and appropriate conduct. A significant majority of the public doesn’t believe that’s the case today.”