564 Threats in One Year
U.S. Marshals Service data shows 564 threats against federal judges in fiscal 2025. Since fiscal 2026 began in October, there have been 131 more. The judges being threatened are the ones ruling against the administration.
564 threats against federal judges in one year. The judges being targeted are the ones ruling against the administration.
These are not angry letters. Judge John McConnell Jr., who blocked the administration’s federal aid freeze in January 2025, said his court received more than 400 “vile, threatening, horrible” voicemails. One caller wished for his imprisonment and assassination. Someone searched for his home address on the dark web because they wanted “Smith & Wesson” to pay him a visit at his home.
The Names
Judge John Coughenour in Washington state, who heard the birthright citizenship case, said he had never received as many death threats as after being assigned to a case involving the president’s priorities.
Judge William Young in Massachusetts, who ruled the administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists was likely unlawful, received a message reading “Trump has pardons and tanks … what do you have?”
Judge Esther Salas in New Jersey was targeted with a different kind of threat. At least 20 pizzas were sent to homes in the name of her late son, who was murdered by a gunman who came to her house in 2020. The order forms read “We know where you live. We know where your children live.”
The judges spoke out publicly about the threats, an extraordinary step for a branch of government that typically works in silence.
262 Rulings Against the Administration
Federal courts have ruled against the administration 262 times. The government wins only 33% of decided cases. At least 225 judges have ruled in more than 700 cases that the administration’s mandatory immigration detention policy likely violates due process.
The judiciary is the institution that has held most firmly against executive overreach. The threats are the response. When a judge blocks an executive order, the administration frames it as judicial overreach. Supporters hear that framing and act on it. The judge receives 400 voicemails.
The Function of Intimidation
The threats do not need to change a ruling to be effective. They need to make the next judge hesitate. A judge who knows that ruling against the administration will result in death threats, pizza deliveries in a murdered child’s name, and dark web searches for their home address may interpret the law the same way but feel the weight differently.
When election workers are threatened, experienced workers leave and are replaced by novices. When judges are threatened, the intimidation targets the institution that is the last check on executive power.
In the 5-step pattern, capturing the courts is Step 1. When direct capture fails because judges rule independently, intimidation is the fallback. The judges are ruling correctly. The threats are the evidence that the rulings matter.
Read more on the Rule of Law hub and the courts blocking analysis.