Amid President Donald Trump\u2019s so-called \u201cjudge tagging,\u201d or public criticism of judges who block his policies, and amid threatening behavior from some of his supporters, some in the U.S. judiciary are discussing the idea of operating an independent security team for each federal court.<\/p>\n
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on the 24th that this idea was raised in early March at the \u201cJudicial Conference,\u201d a federal-level judicial policy discussion body where about 50 judges meet privately every six months.<\/p>\n
According to the report, members of the conference\u2019s \u201cSecurity Committee\u201d brought up the issue of operating an independent security team for each court, citing the threat posed by President Trump\u2019s increasing criticism of judges who have made rulings that block his policies.<\/p>\n
Currently, Supreme Court justices are protected by Supreme Court police officers, and the approximately 2,700 federal judges under them are protected by the Marshals Service. The problem is that the Marshals Service reports to the Attorney General, who is part of the executive branch. Some worry that if President Trump were to “retaliate” by ordering the Attorney General to stop providing security to judges he believes are holding him back, the judges in question could be exposed to threats.<\/p>\n
The WSJ reported that these concerns were relayed to Chief Justice John Roberts. Meanwhile, on the 22nd, Democratic Senator Cory Booker (New Jersey) proposed a bill that would allow courts at all levels to be responsible for their own security and allow the Chief Justice to appoint the head of the Marshals Service.<\/p>\n
The idea was to have the judiciary itself take charge of protecting judges, rather than having the executive branch, which cannot be free from the president’s influence, take charge of protecting members of the judiciary.<\/p>\n
In a statement, Booker said Trump \u201chas made clear through his words and actions that he has no respect for the law, the orders of our courts, the safety of our judges, or our institutions.\u201d There are many who point out that President Trump’s ‘targeting’ of judges who put the brakes on his policies and the ‘threats’ of extreme Trump supporters are approaching a dangerous level.<\/p>\n
In March, when Judge James Vosberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia pointed out the illegality of his deportation of illegal aliens, President Trump said that he was “trying to usurp presidential power” and that he should be impeached. In effect, he was ‘targeting’ the judge who raised an issue with President Trump’s application of the ‘Enemy Nationals Act’ to designate about 300 Venezuelan nationals as members of a criminal organization and then deport them. Meanwhile, the WSJ reported that dozens of judges and their families and acquaintances recently received anonymous pizzas delivered to their homes.<\/p>\n
The \u2018unordered’ pizza delivery means that ‘we know where you live’ and conveys the message, ‘be careful, there may be a terrorist attack.’ In March, the sister of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett received a bomb threat after the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling ordering the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to pay contractors, the WSJ reported.<\/p>\n
Another judge was visited by SWAT officers after they detected threats against her after she blocked President Trump\u2019s executive order limiting the constitutional provision granting citizenship to those born in the U.S. under the principle of sojourn.<\/p>\n
In this regard, the Trump administration has stated that it has no plans to remove the Marshals Service\u2019s protection of federal judges and that Marshals Service agents will continue to protect them.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"