WASHINGTON (CN) — On the eve of the new year, Chief Justice John Roberts warned Tuesday that some court critics are crossing the line between lawful criticism and unlawful threats.
In recent years, court watchers have scrutinized everything from judicial ethics off the bench to judicial interpretation on the bench. And Roberts said judges typically benefit from informed criticism from lawmakers, academics and the public.
“Unfortunately, not all actors engage in ‘informed criticism’ or anything remotely resembling it,” the George W. Bush appointee wrote in his annual year-end report.
Roberts linked increased criticism of judges and their rulings to an increase in violent threats. Following a leaked draft opinion throwing out federal abortion rights, an armed man was arrested outside of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home.
According to the United States Marshals Services, threats against judges have more than tripled over the last decade. Roberts noted that over 1,000 serious threats against federal judges were investigated in just the past five years, and this past July Republican Representative Jim Jordan blamed additional security enhancements for the Supreme Court on his Democratic colleagues’ rhetoric.
Law enforcement foiled many of these plots before they could be carried out, with only a handful of successful targeted attacks. However, Roberts worried that nonphysical attacks on judges are not so easily thwarted.
Roberts suggested that such threats came from public officials trying to intimidate judges by suggesting political bias in adverse rulings, elected officials calling for impeachment after decisions in high-profile cases and disappointed litigants raging at judicial decisions on the internet.
“Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed,” Roberts wrote. “Public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others.”
In November U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones chastised a Georgetown Law professor on a shared panel. Steve Vladeck has called for judicial reforms in single-judge divisions to prevent judge shopping. While wielding a manilla folder with printouts of the professor’s online posts, the Fifth Circuit judge claimed Vladeck’s “unsavory attacks” threatened the rule of law.
Roberts suggested that disinformation undermines judicial independence by distorting the factual and legal basis behind rulings.
“Our branch is peculiarly ill-suited to combat this problem, because judges typically speak only through their decisions,” Roberts wrote.
In 2019, Roberts called for an emphasis on civic education to combat disinformation on social media, but now warned of more advanced threats from foreign actors. Without citing any specific incident, Roberts claimed bots use fake narratives to foment discord within American democracy and that hackers had stolen confidential and highly sensitive information for nefarious purposes.
“Either way, because these actors distort our judicial system in ways that compromise the public’s confidence in our processes and outcomes, we must as a nation publicize the risks and take all appropriate measures to stop them,” Roberts wrote.
Outrage over rulings by the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority has at times evoked calls for public defiance. Without the sword or the purse, the judiciary only wields its authority through the public’s compliance.
Following Brown v. Board of Education, state governors refused to comply with court-ordered school desegregation — leading the White House to intervene and order compliance. Roberts cautioned against returning down this road.
“Within the past few years, however, elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings,” Roberts wrote. “These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected.”
Court critics blame waning public confidence in the courts on judges. Roberts said judges should preserve the public’s trust by staying within assigned areas of judicial responsibility. He suggested that the courts should only rule on live cases or controversies — an area where the Supreme Court has been accused of overstepping — and respect the work of elected officials on behalf of the people they represent.