On March 11, about 50 judges gathered in Washington for the biennial meeting of the Judiciary Conference, which oversees the federal court’s administration. This is the first meeting to meet at the meeting since President Trump withdraws the White House.
Several people attending the party said that in discussions on staffing levels and remote plans, the judge's dialogue focused to unusual levels on threats targeting the judge and his security.
Richard J., chairman of the Judicial Security Committee of the Conference,
The U.S. Marshal Services oversees the security of the judiciary and is part of the Justice Department, which Mr. Trump directly controls in a way that has no president since the Watergate scandal.
Judge Sullivan noted that Mr. Trump stripped security from his former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his former national security adviser John Bolton. Next, can the federal judiciary be the latest target of Mr. Trump's anger?
Judge Sullivan, nominated by President George W. Bush and then promoted to appeal judge by Mr. Trump, who referred questions about his closed-door remarks to the U.S. Court Administration Office, which stated “full confidence in those responsible for judicial security.”
There is no evidence that Mr. Trump has considered revoking the judge's safety. But Judge Sullivan’s remarks are a special sign of the level of anxiety that judges face about the threats faced by federal judges. They stressed the increasing discomfort of judges that their safety was handled by an agency that ultimately answered the president through the Attorney General and that, in their opinion, their funds did not keep up with the acceleration of the threat.
“Cut down all safety of a judge or a court – there is no such thing happening, and I don't want to do that.” Director Jeremy Fogel, retired federal judge at the Berkeley Judicial Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, said he is frequently in contact with the current judge. “But you never know. Because it can be said that testing is being done anywhere. The judge is worried that this could happen.”
The Marshals' Office said in a statement that it took “under the direction of the Federal Court” and “implemented all legal orders of the Federal Court.” The statement said the integrity of the judicial process depends on “protecting judges, jurors and witnesses.”
White House spokesman Harrison Fields said Mr. Trump decided to strip Mr. Pompei of security, while two former officials, Mr. Bolton, had nothing to do with his current judge. His fears say the president will deprive judges of their safety of “guess”, which is “dangerous and irresponsible”.
Founded in 1789, the American Marshal Service Company has extensive law enforcement responsibilities in addition to supporting the core functions of the judiciary. There are now 94 presidential appointments, and the Senate has confirmed the position of U.S. marshal, one for each judicial district. Report of the Directors of the Institution To the Deputy Attorney General.
As the threat to the judge has been increasing, the burden of service has been widened, and therefore worrying about who is responsible for the marshal.
Statistics released by the agency show that the number of judges under threatened targets more than doubled from 2019 to 2024 before Mr. Trump returns to office. During those years, he disputed the outcome of the 2020 election, and the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a ruling that made abortion a constitutional right. In June 2022, an armed officer attempted to assassinate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh at his home after the Supreme Court's leaked ruling on Roe.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Since Mr. Trump took office in January, he and his supporters have insulted individual judges on social media and called on them to impeach each in response to a ruling they dislike. In a message posted on Easter, Mr. Trump mentioned “weak and ineffective judges” who allowed “sincere attacks on our country” in terms of immigration.
The judge and his family have reported false threats from bombs in their mailboxes in recent weeks. As of mid-April, dozens of pizza were sent anonymously to the judges and their families at their homes, a signal that your enemies know where you live.
According to Ironwall CEO Ron Zayas, contracts with district courts, state courts and some individual judges to provide data protection and security services to judges and other public officials, the number of judges using their services to emergency protection is more than four times the average last year. He said 40 judges also used their money to strengthen their security with Ironwall, twice as much as on January 1.
In a letter to Congress on April 10, Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr., who directed the U.S. Court Executive Office, issued a similar warning for years.
According to statistics from the Executive Office and Marshal, despite inflation and employee salaries, the total spent remained almost flat in 2024, with totals rising from $1.26 billion in 2022 to $1.34 billion.
At the same time, the burden of service has increased.
In recent years, the U.S. marshal said in a statement that they have begun to help protect the houses of Supreme Court judges, whose security is mainly handled by the Supreme Court's Marshal's office. Last summer, a U.S. marshal stationed outside his home in Washington, Sonia Sotomayor, shot and killed an armed man in an attempt to jail.
In January, the Trump administration, along with other law enforcement agencies, granted new powers to enforce immigration laws. This move prompted the Chairman of the Criminal Law Committee of the Judicial Conference, Judge Edmond E. Chang, to write a memorandum to all district judges and magistrates, warning about the potential impact of the marshal's ability to protect them. (Judge Zhang declined to comment; his memo was before Reuters.)
In addition to protecting the lives of judges, U.S. law also states that the Marshal's “main role and mission” is to “comply, execute and enforce all orders of the Federal Court.” Executing a court order may require imposing fines and imprisonment on any judge's contempt against the court, including, theoretically, executive officers.
In some cases, the Trump administration's posture raises the possibility that the marshal who may have stretched to become a crucial referee among branches. In court, the Justice Department lawyers approached publicly violating the court's order, which was due to the illegal deportation of the El Salvador prison, a group of nearly 140 Venezuelans and Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, whose dismissed officials admitted “administrative errors.” Two judges responded by opening the question, which could lead to administrative officials being despised.
“What happens if the Marshal was ordered to send a contemptuous citation to the head of the institution who violated the court order?” Paul W. Green. “Are they going to do this? I doubt that in the near future, the question of who the Marshal serves to serve will be tested.”
It is nothing new to pay attention to oversight of the marshal's services. A 1982 Government Accountability Bureau report stated that the marshal's supervision arrangement was an “unfeasible management condition.” As a possible solution, it proposes legislation to transfer control of the marshal to the judiciary.
Some MPs have begun to propose similar solutions.
“If you have more independent security, do you think you can better protect judges?” Eric Swalwell, a Democratic representative of California, testified on behalf of a federal judge on behalf of the Judiciary Conference at a hearing in February, days before Judge Sullivan's remarks.
Darrell Issa, a representative of the Republican Party in California, replied that he considered the issue of independent supervision. The judge replied that the meeting would consider the matter.
Swalwell said in an interview that he was drafting legislation that would put the judiciary in charge of its own security.
Last month, Ronald Davis led the agency’s president, Joseph R. Biden Jr., who directed the agency, explicitly warned LinkedIn that “if the president refuses to enforce or comply with federal court orders.” He also proposed measures to protect the marshal from potential interference from the administration.
Meanwhile, the government's near-term goal of serving the marshal may be to narrow it down.
On April 15, Mark P. Pittella, the agency’s acting director, sent a letter to more than 5,000 employees serving as part of a tailoring measure related to the Elon Musk project, known as the Ministry of Government Efficiency, which provides them with the opportunity to resign and qualify for more than four months of administrative leave. Institutional leadership will review applications to ensure they do not “adversely affect USMS mission-critical requirements,” Pittella wrote in a letter obtained by the New York Times.
But a spokesman for the service said the offer was open to employees in various areas of responsibility, including the marshal responsible for protecting the judge.
