It is a documented fact that threats against judges in this country are at an all-time high. The U.S. Marshals Service has reported that hundreds of threats are made against federal judges annually. The numbers have been rising significantly in recent years. Both federal and state judges have been speaking more openly about harassment, intimidation, and security concerns. What has changed is not simply the existence of threats, but their frequency, accessibility, and reach. Digital communication enables instantaneous, often anonymous targeting.

In our state, King County Superior Court Judge Andrea Robertson, who sits on the court’s security committee, has noted that threats against Washington judges are  “ worse now than ever before.” She pointed out that verbal attacks on the judiciary, including those by President Donald Trump, have only made matters worse. Judge Robertson outlined the common forms of judicial harassment, including threatening emails, liens placed on property, after-hours calls, midnight text messages, publication of contact information for the judge or family members, and surreptitious photographs of them outside court. These actions occur even though they are a felony under Washington statute RCW 9A.72.160.

The President has publicly made frequent personal and derogatory attacks on judges who rule against his interests.  Following a 6-3 decision in February 2026 that overturned tariffs, President Trump called the  justices who ruled against him “fools,” and “lap dogs.”  He specifically stated that Justice Gorsuch and Justice Barrett “sicken me” and that the ruling was “an embarrassment to their families”.  

Washington judiciary committee materials likewise indicate that threats against judges in this state are increasing and reflect broader national trends. These actions show that the risk to judicial safety and judicial independence is present and impacting Washington’s own judiciary.

It is inherent in adversarial judicial systems to have disagreement with judicial rulings. But the current climate reflects a growing tendency to personalize disagreements. Criticism that once focused on legal reasoning now questions a judge’s motives, legitimacy, or integrity. The distinction is critical. A system that tolerates and depends upon robust legal disagreement is not the same as one in which judges are personally targeted for rulings they make.

Washington practitioners may think the increasing threats against judges are remote concerns that do not directly impact their own professional practice. However, the pattern reflects a broader shift that directly implicates the daily functioning of courts in this state and the professional responsibilities of  Washington practitioners as well as their clients. Threats against judges can impact courtroom security protocols, judicial demeanor, and, in some instances, the willingness of judges to preside over particularly contentious matters..

Threats against judges, either verbal, digital, or physical, raise concerns that extend beyond individual judges’ safety. At stake is the functioning of the judicial system itself.

First, the important confidence in judicial independence is directly implicated. The constitutional design assumes that judges impartially decide cases based solely on law and fact, free from external pressure. When judges face threats or harassment, safety must be considered. That raises concern over undermining judicial independence and public confidence in the judiciary.

Second, the rule of law depends on neutral decision-makers. Courts serve as the forum where disputes are resolved by reasoned judgment rather than power. If judicial decisions are perceived as vulnerable to intimidation, the system risks shifting from one governed by law to one influenced by pressure.

Third, threats erode institutional legitimacy. Courts possess neither the power of the purse nor the sword. Their authority rests largely on public acceptance of their decisions. Persistent attacks on judges, particularly those that are personal rather than substantive, can weaken that legitimacy and reduce voluntary compliance with court orders.

Fourth, there is a risk of escalation. History has demonstrated normalization from harsh rhetoric to an escalation of personal attacks. The danger of threats progressing to violence, even if most criticism remains lawful, makes the situation worrisome.

Fifth,  an environment in which judges are frequent targets of hostility and possible harm can deter qualified candidates from seeking or agreeing to judicial roles. In addition, it places additional and distracting burdens on those who serve in a judicial role.

In short, threats against judges are not merely a security concern. They implicate the core premise of the legal system. The legal system is based upon the principle that disputes in a democratic society are resolved by courts impartially applying the law, not influenced by fear, retaliation, or coercion.

This situation has significant concerns for Washington lawyers. Attorneys serve as intermediaries between the public and the courts. The tone of legal advocacy, both in and out of court, helps shape public perception of the judiciary. Washington lawyers are bound by duties of candor, respect, and integrity toward tribunals. The current environment tests how those duties are exercised in public statements, filings, and advocacy. This does not require less appropriate advocacy in making legal presentations. It does, however, require maintaining the distinction between criticizing a ruling and making personal attacks on the judges or their motives who make the decisions. That distinction is foundational to the rule of law.

Rising threats against judges are not just a security issue. They raise day-to-day practice considerations for Washington lawyers. The response by the Washington bar should be practical, ethical, and immediate. Washington lawyers can respond by maintaining professional, issue-focused advocacy, avoiding personal attacks, and exercising care in public statements about judicial issues. They should take credible threats seriously and report them. They should advise clients about pursuing grievances through lawful channels & not by improper or unlawful targeting of judges. Attorneys should support courtroom security measures. They should reinforce public confidence in the legal system by emphasizing that disputes are resolved through law, not intimidation.

At its core, the concern is simple. It is that a legal system cannot function as constitutionally intended if its judges are subject to persistent pressure, intimidation, or fear of retaliation. Preserving judicial independence is not solely the responsibility of the courts. It is a shared obligation with members of the Washington bar playing a central role.