In the lead-up to the Speak Up for Justice panel, JURIST Associate Editorial Director Alanah Vargas spoke with Judge Esther Salas of the US District Court in New Jersey about what it means to uphold the rule of law amid growing disinformation, division, and fear. She reflected on the weighty responsibilities from the bench, the fragility of democracy and public trust, and why moments like these demand both courage and clarity from federal courts. Though the panel has concluded, her insights remain deeply relevant in today’s challenging political climate.
In the years since the tragic attack on your family, how have your views evolved on the personal risks that come with being a federal judge in the United States?
This coming July 19 will mark five years since my son was murdered at our home in North Brunswick, New Jersey. My husband, Mark, and I have really been on a journey to not only try to heal—although you really never fully heal from our devastation—but try to process the loss of our only child. In the aftermath of Daniel’s murder, Mark and I have tried to transform our pain in hopes of helping others avoid tragic circumstances like ours. And so, with the passage of laws like Daniel’s Law in New Jersey and The Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2022 at the federal level, we feel that we are in a better place today with those laws in place, but much work remains to be done. Mark and I continue to advocate for other states to enact their own laws that protect all judges. State laws serve as belt and suspenders to the federal legislation. A lot remains to be done, and now that we are in uncharted territory with an alarming rise of threats against judges, we must continue to advocate for increased protections for federal, state, and local judges. The numbers tell a story that it’s not getting better; it’s getting worse. And with the pizza doxxing incidents all throughout the United States, we need to defend the rule of law, to protect our constitution and our democracy. Sadly, I don’t think we’re any better since Daniel’s murder. I think we’re actually in—dare I say—more troubling waters. And a lot of it has to do with, I think, the irresponsible and inflammatory rhetoric from political leaders, people in power, and people with large social platforms. Their rhetoric is making things a whole heck of a lot worse. I believe that irresponsible inflammatory rhetoric gives license to people to “take matters into their own hands.” Judges are being villainized. We’ve seen things we’ve never seen before. We’ve seen members of Congress calling for the impeachment of judges for simply disagreeing with their rulings. Judges are doing their jobs and because their rulings might conflict with the policies, practices, or agenda of current leaders, judges are being villainized. They’re being called “rogue” judges that need to be controlled. We’re being called “crazy,” “leftist,” “unconstitutional” judges. We’re being called “deranged” and “monsters.” And these personal attacks are coming from our leaders. This isn’t making things any better; this is making things worse.
You’ve been a leading advocate for judicial safety. What steps do you believe the US government and judiciary should be taking right now to better protect judges and their families?
First and foremost, I would love to see our political leaders lead responsibly. I would love to see a toning down of the inflammatory rhetoric. I think that if we can all get back to being civil to one another, understanding, and working within the constitutional framework that this country was founded on, that would be a great start, and in my opinion, one of the easier fixes. We’re asking our leaders to lead responsibly, and we’re asking that we begin to engage in a civil dialogue—you know, agree to disagree. And by all means, use the constitutional framework if you disagree with our opinions, but don’t personalize our rulings. Don’t accuse us of being partisan or corrupt or having agendas when there’s no factual bases to support that. When our leaders do that, they again are inviting people to do us harm. We have seen an uptick in the numbers of pizza doxxings that are clearly deliberate acts of intimidation. These are serious threats to democracy. Chief Justice Roberts talked about four illegitimate attacks on the judiciary. Violence—we’ve seen that; I’m living proof of that. Intimidation. The intimidation that’s being utilized by, what I believe, are a group of people acting in a very strategic and targeted way. These bad actors are sending 103 pizzas to judges and judges’ children and at least 20 of them in my murdered son’s name. We’re seeing the spreading of disinformation. When you call judges “monsters,” when you say that we “hate” the United States of America, when you say that we’re “deranged,” and when you call us “rogue” over and over and over again, and you utilize different platforms to call us these abhorrent names, that is the intentional spreading of disinformation. The continued and repeated use of this negative and false narrative has detrimental impacts on our justice system. People begin to believe the false narrative, and that leads to the erosion of the public’s trust in our justice system. That spreading of disinformation is exactly what I think the Chief Justice was talking about in his year-end report. The fourth illegitimate attack noted by Chief Justice Roberts is the threatening to disobey lawfully entered orders. All these illegitimate attacks weaken the constitutional fibers of this country.
The Anderl Act was passed on December 23, 2022, and it had a grant component which was initially set up to assist states that were interested in passing laws protecting the personally identifiable information (PII) of judges. It’s a state and local grant program. It hasn’t been funded. I would love to see Congress fund the program. I think that’s a step in the right direction. Mark and I continue to travel this country talking about the need for increased judicial security. It is alarming to know that there are so many states and US territories which have no laws protecting their judiciary. The passage of judicial security laws in those states and US territories would better protect all judges from senseless acts of violence.
When it comes to judicial security, I do think that judges need to know what their online footprint looks like, and I think we need to start being proactive when it comes to our own security. Are we taking advantage of all that the Anderl Act has to offer federal judges? Are we being socially mindful of our own information that’s put out there by either ourselves or our children? Are we having these tough conversations with our kids about judicial security, and about things that judges can do to protect their family by educating and talking to their children, not trying to scare them, but trying to make them realize the danger. In today’s environment, you don’t answer the door—you look at the camera first? Do you have safe words? A lot of judges now have safe words that they utilize with their family members. If someone calls; if someone comes to the door, what’s the safe word? If someone comes to pick you up, what’s the safe word? Are you taking advantage of laws within your state that allow you to register your home in an LLC? There are a lot of things that we must do on an individual level to ensure our safety, but there are a lot of things as a nation we could do to protect democracy.
How do threats to individual judges affect the broader integrity and independence of the US judicial system?
I think judges need to be free to do their job without retaliation, retribution, or death. We need to be able to be confident that our branches of government respect each others’ roles. We need to be able to do our jobs without being vilified; without being accused of partisan conduct when there’s none. That was the idea of our founding fathers: to create a government where the judiciary could do the job of interpreting the law and make judgments without fear that those judgments themselves would lead to their own prosecution or persecution. And so, what we’re seeing play out certainly has a chilling effect in the sense that even if judges are—and I do believe they are—upholding the rule of law by making difficult calls as the law mandates, there is a certain amount of pressure that is taking a toll on judges. We are seeing various forms of psychological warfare inflicted upon judges and that can’t be good for democracy. People calling our chambers wishing us dead. People sending pizzas to our houses and the houses of our children in the name of my son. What does that say to the judge?: “Do you want to end up like Daniel?” “Do you want to end up like Judge Salas?” These are all forms of intimidation that I think truly are attempts to chill the independence of the judiciary. Judges are human. We have families. We have to leave these positions at the end of the day and go into these communities. It’s definitely trying on my colleagues, and it is something that I’m greatly concerned about.
Some Americans may not fully grasp the connection between judicial safety and the health of our democracy. What do you most want the public to understand about that connection?
Although we have seen our leaders on both sides of the aisle use inflammatory rhetoric, I believe the tone of this rhetoric has reached new heights. When our leaders accuse us of being “rogue”, accuse us of having agendas, accuse us of needing to be controlled, and calling for our impeachment simply because they disagree with our rulings, they are endangering our democracy. These false narratives erode the public confidence in the justice system. By calling us “monsters” that “hate” America, these personal attacks only serve to dehumanize judges. And why does that matter? Because if you’re an American who feels that you have been wronged—you have suffered some injustice that requires assistance from our court system—and your adversary happens to be a very wealthy landowner; a very wealthy member of society; a very powerful individual, you want justice to be blind. You don’t want judges being concerned about whether a ruling might offend your powerful adversary, you want judges to only look to the facts and the law and nothing else. The day judges start looking at anything other than the facts and the law, you’re in trouble. If justice isn’t blind then you’re not guaranteed a call that maybe should have been made in your favor, but because now you have a more powerful opponent—a richer opponent—you may lose and forfeit your rights. Democracy mandates that we allow judges to make rulings based on the law and irrespective of the litigants. That’s not guaranteed if we don’t start speaking up for justice.
You had briefly mentioned the pizza doxxing. Could you explain more about that for people who may not be familiar with what that is or what was happening and how it affected you?
We started seeing pizzas being delivered. It started out in 2024, I believe. Let me be clear: I think judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans have been on the receiving end of the pizza doxxing. But we really saw an uptick in February and March of this year. Just picture this: you’re a judge that made an unfavorable ruling in a high-profile matter. You’re home with your family, and the doorbell rings. You go to the door and it’s a pizza, but you didn’t order a pizza. Your family just finished dinner. And all of a sudden you’re wondering, “wait a minute—why am I getting a pizza?” We started to see that judges were being sent pizzas by unknown sources. These pizzas clearly were being sent to judges that were handling these high-profile matters. Whoever was sending the pizzas knew where the judge lived. Then we saw an uptick in these threats. We started seeing the judges’ children—their grown children living in different states—get pizza. And what does that say to the judge? It says, “we know where you live and we know where your child lives.” Then on April 6, we had a judge receive a pizza in my murdered son’s name. There have been 20 of those pizzas sent in the name of Daniel Anderl—my murdered son’s name—is being weaponized to inflict fear against judges. Clearly, that message is “do you want to end up like Daniel?; “Do you want to end up like Judge Salas?” These are blatant, aggressive acts of intimidation that are being investigated, but I have yet to hear anyone in a position of power denounce these forms of intimidation. This is happening in real time. 103 pizzas to date have been delivered, or attempted to be delivered, to judges all throughout this country. Los Angeles, Maryland, Oregon, DC, New York. I could keep going. Everybody hears “pizzas” and people might trivialize the significance such an act has on the judge receiving this threat. I think you have to put yourself in the judge’s shoes. After a high-profile ruling, this judge goes home to his or her sanctuary to spend time with loved ones. Out of the blue, the doorbell rings, and it is a pizza sent by an anonymous source in Daniel’s name. How do you think that judge, his or her spouse, their children feel when something like that happens? It’s awful to think that judges all throughout this country have had to deal with that form of psychological warfare.
For me, the wounds from our attack in 2020 have been opened as of late. Obviously, the shooting in Minnesota; the tragedy in Minnesota, it’s very close to home for me and for my husband Mark. Very close. And I just think that we’re just using such hate-filled rhetoric. Intolerance is pervasive. We have lost the ability to respectfully disagree. We’ve turned to name calling. We’ve turned to accusations—unfounded accusations—instead of just questioning a ruling on the merits. We are dangerously close to destabilizing democracy. There no longer seems to be respect for the coequal branches of government. And while there’s always been tension between the branches of government, which is expected, the increased politicization of our courts is not healthy for democracy. We now make things personal instead of criticizing the merits of a particular ruling. Judges are ready for our opinions to be appealed. Scrutinized. Reversed when necessary. That’s part of the job. But what I don’t think judges were prepared for was for our rulings to be criticized on such a personal and unfounded, baseless way. You know, accusing judges of “hating” their country. Accusing judges of being “monsters.” Accusing judges of being “deranged.” Accusing judges of being “partisan.” Accusing judges of being “corrupt.” Again, without any bases is irresponsible and dangerous. Instead of personal attacks, please feel free to voice your disagreement and appeal us. Operate within the constitutional framework that we have enjoyed for 200 plus years. We have enjoyed this constitutional framework and saying it’s “broken” over and over again with no evidence that it’s broken is part of that spreading of disinformation.
As someone who has experienced firsthand the dangers facing judges, how does Speak Up for Justice help translate personal risk into public advocacy and systemic change?
It’s important for all of us to begin to speak up for justice. For all of us to begin to defend the rule of law. For all of us to protect our democracy. And the way we do it is we talk about these things and we shed light—not heat—on what’s going on in America today. Speak Up for Justice and its programming allows for judges, lawyers, and concerned citizens to address the real dangers we all face in this country. By inviting judges who have had firsthand experience with, what I believe, are undemocratic threats to democracy, we are addressing these illegitimate attacks that Chief Justice Roberts spoke about—very strongly—in his 2024 year-end report. When it comes to violence against the judiciary, Mark and I have to live every day without our only child. I can’t tell you how hard it is for us to get up every morning and move forward without Daniel. Our family suffered through four miscarriages, and Daniel was a gift from God. And I had that gift ripped and torn away from me because I’m a judge. I don’t wish for anyone to experience the pain we have been living with for close to five years. That’s why these acts of intimidation, the pizza doxxing is so scary. Judges are being sent a not-so-veiled threat that they too can suffer our fate if they don’t fall in line. The continued spreading of disinformation dehumanizes judges, and by doing so, the American public might not care to defend us if they don’t believe we are worth saving. Finally, when our leaders intimate that they might not follow lawfully entered orders by the court, why should anyone else care to follow our orders? All these illegitimate attacks mandate that we continue to support Speak Up for Justice. That’s why we need everyone to tune in. That’s why we need people to support the efforts by many organizations—and in particular this group—to talk about real issues in a nonpartisan, honest, open, and candid way. Now more than ever, we all need to follow Justice Kennedy’s advice to say no to tyranny and yes to truth.
Do you have any final thoughts you’d like to leave us with?
What I hope to stress to your audience and anyone who will listen is that this affects us all. It is not lost on me that for many Americans, life and all its challenges can keep people very busy. We’re raising our families. We’re working hard to keep a roof over our head and food in the refrigerator. We have everyday stresses that can be all-consuming. We hear about these dangers to democracy, and it all seems to be so away from our realities. People might hear about it and although it sounds important, they’ve got too much to deal with today. But this does matter. This matters, and this affects everyone. Everyone enjoys constitutional freedoms that a lot of people lost their lives fighting for. And we take things for granted; not because we don’t care, but because we’re so tired and exhausted with the bombardment of negative news and a lot of information that’s too much to take in. I wish for people to understand this will affect us all. It impacts everyone.
I will continue to honor my son because he sacrificed his life as an act of love for his father and me. Daniel’s life and his tragic murder mandates that Mark and I continue to defend the rule of law, protect the constitution, and fight for our democracy. Daniel’s last words to me were “Keep talking to me, Mom. I love talking to you.” Well, I won’t stop talking to Daniel, and I won’t stop speaking up for justice. And I welcome everyone to join me. Visit SpeakUpForJustice.law, stand with us, and be part of a community that aims to protect our courts, preserve civil discourse, and ensure our democracy endures, for our children, and for generations still to come.