Deputy Attorney General’s “War” on the Judiciary is an Assault on Judicial Independence

New York City Bar Association Statement

The New York City Bar Association (“City Bar”) condemns the remarks delivered by Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General (“DAG”) of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), on November 7, 2025, at the annual conference of the Federalist Society, in which he described the Administration as being at “war” with the federal judiciary and invited young lawyers to “join the fight” against purported “activist judges.” Blanche’s belligerent rhetoric presents a serious threat to the safety of judges in a time when violence toward judges is at unprecedented levels. His remarks also reflect a broader attitude within the leadership of the DOJ that views the judiciary as an adversary to be vanquished, rather than a co-equal branch of government intended to serve as a check on the executive. DAG Blanche’s comments and the attitude they reflect serve to undermine the rule of law, erode the separation of powers and threaten the physical safety of individual judges and their families.

Speaking to an audience of young attorneys, DAG Blanche suggested that unnamed “rogue” federal judges were issuing rulings based on political bias rather than the law, reportedly stating that certain judges “have a robe on but they are more political or certainly as political as the most liberal governor or D.A. There’s a group of judges that are repeat players, and that’s obviously not by happenstance, that’s intentional . . . .” He repeatedly referred to the Trump Administration as being at “war” with the judiciary, observing that “[t]he system is not set up for efficiency when it comes to rogue activist judges.”[1]

DAG Blanche’s remarks come at a time when actual and threatened violence against the judiciary has reached record levels in our country. According to data maintained by the U.S. Marshals Service, threats and hostile communications directed at judges have more than tripled in the past decade.[2] The number of threats increases each year, with 2025 on pace to surpass previous highs.[3]

The threats against the judiciary have taken multiple forms, from swatting (fake emergency calls to a person’s home to draw a response), to doxxing (publishing personal information online), to death threats against judges and their families. Threats have become so pervasive that, in some jurisdictions, judicial officers have been issued bullet-proof vests for public events and require additional security because of threats related to their decisions.[4] In May, Reuters reported that family members of at least eleven federal judges had faced threats of violence or harassment after ruling against the Trump Administration.[5]

In far too many instances, the targeting of judges has escalated from threats to actual or attempted violence.

• In 2020, an attacker disguised as a delivery driver shot and killed the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas and severely wounded her husband. Judge Salas was the intended victim.
• In 2022, a retired Wisconsin judge, John Roemer, was killed in a targeted attack at his home.
• In 2023, a man assaulted Nevada state court Judge Mary Kay Holthus in her courtroom during his sentencing hearing.
• In 2023, a disappointed litigant shot and killed Maryland state court Judge Andrew Wilkinson outside his home.
• In 2024, Kentucky state court Judge Kevin Mullins was shot and killed in his chambers by the county sheriff.
• Last month, a man was sentenced to eight years in prison for attempting to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh at his home in 2022.

Given this climate, DAG Blanche’s martial language — coming from the second-ranking official in the Justice Department — is reckless and dangerous. Intentionally or not, it gives the imprimatur of legitimacy to those who see threats of violence as a means to accomplish their objectives. Such comments present a threat to the safety, indeed the lives, of judges and their families.

Equally disturbing, DAG Blanche’s remarks erode our system of checks and balances by attempting to intimidate judges and by undermining public confidence in a fair and impartial judicial system. As Chief Justice Roberts noted in his 2024 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, “attempts to intimidate judges need not physically harm to threaten judicial independence.”[6] Chief Justice Roberts went on to observe that “[p]ublic officials . . . regrettably have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges,” through, among other things, “suggesting political bias in the judge’s adverse rulings without a credible basis for doing so.”[7] DAG Blanche’s comments went even further, insinuating that entire groups of judges, presumably those who have ruled against the Administration, have gone “rogue,” infected by political bias. Such broadside attacks on the judiciary not only risk intimidating judges who might be inclined to rule against the Administration in the future but also undermine public confidence in the judiciary as a whole.

DAG Blanche’s comments were not an isolated incident but rather reflect a culture of contempt for the judiciary at the DOJ. Earlier this year, another high-ranking DOJ official, Principal Associate Attorney General Emil Bove, made headlines for allegedly instructing DOJ line attorneys to tell courts to “fuck off” and ignore court orders, causing over 75 former state and federal judges to write to the Senate Judiciary Committee in strenuous opposition to his appointment to the federal bench.[8] In addition to verbal attacks, the Administration has filed meritless disciplinary charges against the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia[9] and sued the entire district court for the district of Maryland – naming each judge individually in the complaint.[10] As Judge Thomas Cullen noted in dismissing the case, “[i]n casting its wide net, the Executive ensnared  an entire judicial body – a vital part of this coordinate branch of government – and its principal officers in a novel and potentially calamitous litigation.”[11]

Fifty years ago, the fiasco of Watergate led to a renewed appreciation of the critical importance of the DOJ’s adherence to principles of fairness and impartiality, and of avoiding even the appearance of bias, prejudice or partisanship in the exercise of its official responsibilities. DAG Blanche’s remarks and the DOJ leadership’s contemptuous treatment of the federal judiciary are a betrayal of this trust which is so important to the fair and impartial administration of justice in our nation.

Although DAG Blanche focuses his animus on a supposed cabal of “rogue activist” judges whom he accuses of intentionally thwarting the Administration, the reality is far different. Many judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents have rebuked this Administration’s attempts to defy or ignore the law. Across the nation, judges appointed by every president since President Carter have raised concerns about this Administration’s failure to comply with judicial orders in at least twenty cases, have expressed distrust of the information and representations made by Justice Department attorneys in over forty cases, and have found the Administration to have engaged in “arbitrary and capricious” action in more than fifty-five cases.[12] Many of the harshest rebukes have come from judges appointed by President Trump.

To be clear, this is not to say that judges are above criticism or that judges never exert bias, wittingly or unwittingly. As Chief Justice Roberts notes, “some tension between the branches of the government is inevitable and criticism of judicial interpretations of the people’s laws is as old as the Republic itself.”[13] Indeed, as a bar association, we welcome debate over judicial opinions and believe that criticism is vital to improving our system of justice. But as Justice Roberts also recognizes, there is a difference between even heated debate as to the interpretation of the law or judicial philosophy and comments that stoke violence, or serve to intimidate or spread disinformation, which fall outside the bounds of fair criticism into much more dangerous territory. And declaring “war” against the judiciary is far beyond the pale.

As Judge Richard Sullivan of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated earlier this year: “Threats against judges are threats against constitutional government. Everyone should be taking this seriously.”[14] The New York City Bar Association takes threats to judges very seriously. DAG Blanche’s comments have no place in our civil society or our system of government.

The New York City Bar Association unequivocally supports the federal judicial branch and state judiciaries. Our federal and state judges go to work each day, rule on challenging cases, and yet, have been targeted by the Trump Administration and others for fulfilling their constitutional roles. We unwaveringly support the judiciary, thank our judges for their service and commit to defending judicial institutions when they cannot speak for themselves. We call upon and encourage all lawyers to do the same.

About the Association
The mission of the New York City Bar Association, which was founded in 1870 and has over 20,000 members, is to equip and mobilize a diverse legal profession to practice with excellence, promote reform of the law, and uphold the rule of law and access to justice in support of a fair society and the public interest in our community, our nation, and throughout the world. www.nycbar.org.