Judges, lawyers, law students like myself, and legal advocates from across the United States and beyond attended a virtual event on Thursday entitled “Global Threats to the Justice System: A Warning to America”. The event was organized by Speak Up for Justice, a growing nationwide initiative launched by LA-based attorney and event host, Paul R. Kiesel, in response to escalating rhetoric targeting members of the judiciary and increasing incidents of politically motivated intimidation.

Since Donald Trump took office as President of the United States for a second term in January 2025, judges have faced increased attacks and threats, including bomb threats and swatting assaults. As of June 26, 408 threats have been made against 297 judges so far this year.

Judge Esther Salas, of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, warned, “we’re going to break records, people, and not in a good way.”

Trump has not been diffident in hiding his disdain for judges who politically disagree with him, either. Just last month, on Memorial Day, on his Truth Social social media platform, he called federal judges “monsters” who want the United States to “go to hell”.

Amidst the escalating crisis, top federal judiciary officials have requested a nearly 20% increase in funding for Fiscal Year 2026 “to address the substantial increase in threats against federal judges.”

Thursday’s Speak Up for Justice forum featured prominent members of the bench and bar responding to what organizers described as an unprecedented rise in threats, harassment, and public delegitimization directed toward judges in the United States.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy (United States)

Kiesel first introduced retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who warned in 2019 that “one of the first things we must do is develop in this nation a devotion—a return to—a decent, respectful, thoughtful civic dialogue [which] must be the basis for our belief in the rule of law…” Kennedy echoed these concerns during Thursday’s event, warning that “we should be concerned in this country about the tone of our political discourse.” He continued that civil discourse should be “decent” and “characterized by civility.”

“This is what judges do, and this is why judges are of central importance,” Kennedy said.

He also urged Congress to focus more on “temperament, learning, background, and experience. Not just politics” in confirming judges.

Judge Eleazar Javier Saldivia (Venezuela)

Former Venezuelan Judge Eleazar Javier Saldivia then offered a stark account of how judicial independence was dismantled under the guise of reform in Venezuela. He explained that Venezuela’s 1999 constitution, enacted under President Hugo Chávez, was originally framed as a measure to address corruption but ultimately enabled Congress to dismiss judges without due process.

“It wasn’t about reform but control,” Saldivia explained.

Saldivia described how hundreds of judges were removed and replaced by political loyalists, often under the constant threat of termination, rendering the judiciary beholden to the ruling regime. For example, he described a court-packing scheme that expanded the Supreme Court from 20 to 32 justices, with the new seats filled exclusively by government allies, eroding both impartiality and public trust.

He recounted how the regime’s use of fear was exemplified by the televised persecution of Judge María Lourdes Afiuni, who was branded a traitor by President Chávez hours after she complied with a United Nations request to release a political prisoner. Afiuni was subsequently imprisoned, raped, tortured, and held in solitary confinement. Her ordeal, Saldivia said, became emblematic of the climate of terror that silenced Venezuela’s judiciary, especially during nationwide protests against the government.

Saldivi recounted the “chilling” developments as warnings of what happens when the judicial system “become[s] a weapon, not a shield.”

Judge Dorota Zabludowska (Poland)

Judge Dorota Zabłudowska of Poland recounted the systemic dismantling of judicial safeguards under the ruling Law and Justice Party, which came to power in 2015. Between 2015 and 2023, the Polish government enacted a series of measures that eroded judicial independence, including court-packing, politically influenced appointments, and smear campaigns portraying judges as corrupt or disloyal.

Zabłudowska described how courts were mocked as “laughing barricades” for acquitting government critics and how efforts to assert judicial control triggered retaliatory disciplinary proceedings and even criminal investigations against sitting judges.

In response, thousands of European judges, lawyers, and prosecutors took part in the “March of 1,000 Robes,” a Warsaw protest that publicly affirmed solidarity with the Polish judiciary and signaled to the public and international community that legal professionals were not standing alone.

“You have to speak out at every stage,” Zabłudowska urged. “Every safeguard is invaluable.”

Karen C. Burgess (United States)

American attorney Karen C. Burgess then warned that the erosion of judicial independence is often preceded by attacks on the legal profession itself.

Speaking from her experience with the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, she underscored that even under the Nazi regime, one of the first acts of repression was stripping Jewish lawyers of their licenses.

Drawing parallels to modern threats, Burgess cited Russian disinformation campaigns that have deliberately undermined public trust in court decisions, as well as recent U.S. political rhetoric targeting judges for partisan reasons—including calls for impeachment when rulings are unfavorable.

She pointed to March 2025 efforts targeting major American law firms, involving suspensions of security clearances and restrictions on access to federal work. Such firms collectively contributed over $1 billion for free services to the Trump administration in exchange for avoidance of potential executive order penalties.

Citing Cohen v. Hurley, Burgess warned that without judicial independence, lawyers risk becoming “nothing but parrots.” She called for legal professionals to act locally while thinking globally, emphasizing their influence through civic institutions and community engagement.

“The remedy for a decision you don’t like is an appeal,” she stated, denoting that the proper solution is not attacking the judiciary.

Justice Richard Goldstone (South Africa)

Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa offered a historical perspective on the role of the judiciary in both sustaining and dismantling apartheid, warning that today’s global decline in respect for the rule of law—especially in democracies experiencing a surge in right-wing populism—poses serious risks, including in the U.S.

He recalled that during apartheid, South Africa’s judiciary, though exclusively white and male, was broadly respected and largely upheld discriminatory laws. However, under growing domestic and international pressure in the 1970s and 1980s, the government began appointing anti-apartheid lawyers, including Goldstone himself, who helped curb some of the regime’s most egregious policies.

Though Parliament remained all-powerful and there was no Bill of Rights, the judiciary’s institutional legitimacy allowed such rulings to stand. After apartheid’s fall, South Africa adopted a constitution grounded in the rule of law and judicial independence.

Goldstone served on the country’s newly established Constitutional Court, which once ruled against the government of Nelson Mandela. Mandela respected the decision, Goldstone noted, recognizing that judicial independence was essential to democracy.

Marking the 30th anniversary of the Constitutional Court last week, he reflected on the critical role played by international legal programs, including American Bar Association-sponsored efforts that helped train young Black South African lawyers, many of whom are now judges. Turning to the US, he voiced concern that the current administration has weakened judicial independence, but emphasized that American judges have largely honored their constitutional oaths.

Citing Chief Justice John Roberts’ respect for judicial independence, Goldstone concluded, “Judges are not always right, but the remedy is an appeal—not attacks on the judiciary.”

Federal Judge Esther Salas (United States)

U.S. District Judge Esther Salas closed the event and delivered a strong warning about the mounting threats to judicial independence in the United States.

She referenced instances of personal doxxing, such as the anonymous sending of hundreds of pizzas to judges involved with Trump administration litigation and their families’ residences, presumably to show that their addresses are known. The pizza deliveries began at the end of February, when extreme Trump supporters began attacking judges that they disagreed with.

As of May 2025, over 328 lawsuits have been filed challenging the Trump administration’s agendas, ranging from immigration to Elon Musk’s “government efficiency” program. In effect, courts have enacted over 200 orders halting the administration’s executive orders and initiatives.

Watching the proceedings, I immediately recognized Judge Salas’ name, understanding why she was notably poignant about judicial intimidation and the importance of maintaining the rule of law. In 2020, her only son was shot and killed by a dissatisfied lawyer who posed as a delivery driver who was later found to possess a list of judges and doctors, potentially as targets, in his car. Some of the hundreds of pizzas sent included Judge Salas’ deceased son’s name in them, presumably as a threat to undermine judicial independence.

Following the tragedy, Judge Salas heavily advocated for the protection of judicial officers, helping to pass The Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act. The act, among other measures, made it easier for judges to remove personal information from public access.

“We’ve heard it before—claims that judges are rogue, corrupt, or unaccountable,” she said. “It’s the same rhetoric used by dictators to dismantle democracies.” Salas expressed alarm at growing resistance to complying with lawfully issued court orders, warning that such defiance, if normalized, threatens to undermine the entire constitutional system.

Reflections

Reflecting on this event, I lamented the lack of widespread, public awareness of the rapid increase of national assaults against judges—indicative of a “judicial hate crime”—predominately understood only within the legal community. An independent judiciary is a cornerstone of American democracy. At a time when the highest government official in the nation is mandating the death penalty for immigrants and stripping transgender rights, the need for judicial independence from the Executive Branch cannot be more urgent.

Agreeing with the speakers, I reflected on how in American democracy, we can disagree but can fairly settles our differences within the confines of courtrooms. There is no place in our democracy for targeting judges and their families in acts of intimidation or retribution.