A group of former federal judges has voiced strong criticism toward senior officials at the Justice Department who referred to ongoing legal disputes during President Donald Trump’s second term as a “war” against what they called “activist judges.” This statement was seen as unduly provocative and compared to “adding fuel” to a pre-existing fire.
Last week, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche made these comments during a discussion organized by the Federalist Society. She took aim at judges who have blocked some of Trump’s significant executive actions since January, encouraging law students and young attorneys to actively engage in this battle. Blanche stated, “This is a war. We can’t win unless we keep fighting.”
She claimed that judges, while donning robes, are just as political as even the most liberal governors and prosecutors.
Her remarks led to criticism from attendees, including members of the New York State Bar Association and the Article III Coalition, which consists of 50 former federal judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents.
The judges expressed concern in a letter, saying that such rhetoric, especially from high-ranking officials, not only puts individual judges and court staff at risk but also erodes public trust in the judiciary as a fair entity.
In interviews this week, numerous former judges expressed shock at Blanche’s statements, describing them as a stark deviation from the norms typically upheld by the Justice Department and a potential threat to the judiciary and its members. One judge noted that Blanche’s comments starkly contrasted with sentiments shared during his long career in Washington, D.C.
Paul R. Michel, former chief justice of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, remarked, “I’ve been in Washington continuously since 1974 and I’ve never seen anything like this.” He previously played a role as special counsel in the Watergate investigation and found it surprising that a deputy attorney general was acting more like a public relations agent than a enforcer of the law.
Michel and his fellow judges expressed anxiety that such language could deepen the public’s mistrust in the judicial system, which was originally designed to impartially interpret laws and check the powers of other government branches, irrespective of political affiliations.
While acknowledging the frequent disagreements surrounding court decisions, they pointed out that both the Justice Department and opposing parties have clear channels to seek relief through the appeals process.
Federal judges have sought immediate orders to obstruct parts of Trump’s major policy initiatives, including immigration enforcement and issues surrounding citizenship laws. Blanche also pointed out that the administration has turned to the Supreme Court for emergency relief in response to lower court rulings.
Philip Plo, a former district judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, mentioned that those wishing to contest initial orders can have their cases examined by a district court or taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals or even the Supreme Court.
Judges are generally tasked with reacting to cases rather than taking the initiative. Plo added, “There is nothing ‘rigged’ in these decisions. These wheels sharpen slowly, but they sharpen very well.”
Josh Blackman, a law professor who attended Blanche’s talk, expressed understanding for the judges’ concerns while also recognizing the broader issues of judicial review of executive action, which have been a persistent concern for presidents, including Trump, who have sought to implement policies via executive orders.
He commented that judges’ decisions are more susceptible to emergency interventions, emphasizing that there’s a considerable debate about how far judges should intervene in this matter.
“I don’t think Blanche’s remarks incite violence,” Blackman clarified. “What I’m trying to convey is that there’s an unusual tension between the executive and judicial branches.”
Former judges expressed alarm regarding the growing threats faced by current judges, including online harassment and physical threats. Reports indicate that the number of such threats in 2025 is set to surpass that of the previous year, which has led Congress to take notice.
A spokesperson for the Justice Department responded that Blanche’s comments reflect ongoing challenges of dealing with what they perceive to be activist judges who aspire to shape national policy from the bench.
“The Department will continue to uphold the Constitution, respect our legal responsibilities, and push back against decisions that threaten public safety or the will of the citizens,” the spokesperson added.
Ex-judges criticize DOJ comments: ‘Adding fuel’ to a fire
A group of former federal judges has voiced strong criticism toward senior officials at the Justice Department who referred to ongoing legal disputes during President Donald Trump’s second term as a “war” against what they called “activist judges.” This statement was seen as unduly provocative and compared to “adding fuel” to a pre-existing fire.
Last week, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche made these comments during a discussion organized by the Federalist Society. She took aim at judges who have blocked some of Trump’s significant executive actions since January, encouraging law students and young attorneys to actively engage in this battle. Blanche stated, “This is a war. We can’t win unless we keep fighting.”
She claimed that judges, while donning robes, are just as political as even the most liberal governors and prosecutors.
Her remarks led to criticism from attendees, including members of the New York State Bar Association and the Article III Coalition, which consists of 50 former federal judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents.
The judges expressed concern in a letter, saying that such rhetoric, especially from high-ranking officials, not only puts individual judges and court staff at risk but also erodes public trust in the judiciary as a fair entity.
In interviews this week, numerous former judges expressed shock at Blanche’s statements, describing them as a stark deviation from the norms typically upheld by the Justice Department and a potential threat to the judiciary and its members. One judge noted that Blanche’s comments starkly contrasted with sentiments shared during his long career in Washington, D.C.
Paul R. Michel, former chief justice of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, remarked, “I’ve been in Washington continuously since 1974 and I’ve never seen anything like this.” He previously played a role as special counsel in the Watergate investigation and found it surprising that a deputy attorney general was acting more like a public relations agent than a enforcer of the law.
Michel and his fellow judges expressed anxiety that such language could deepen the public’s mistrust in the judicial system, which was originally designed to impartially interpret laws and check the powers of other government branches, irrespective of political affiliations.
While acknowledging the frequent disagreements surrounding court decisions, they pointed out that both the Justice Department and opposing parties have clear channels to seek relief through the appeals process.
Federal judges have sought immediate orders to obstruct parts of Trump’s major policy initiatives, including immigration enforcement and issues surrounding citizenship laws. Blanche also pointed out that the administration has turned to the Supreme Court for emergency relief in response to lower court rulings.
Philip Plo, a former district judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, mentioned that those wishing to contest initial orders can have their cases examined by a district court or taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals or even the Supreme Court.
Judges are generally tasked with reacting to cases rather than taking the initiative. Plo added, “There is nothing ‘rigged’ in these decisions. These wheels sharpen slowly, but they sharpen very well.”
Josh Blackman, a law professor who attended Blanche’s talk, expressed understanding for the judges’ concerns while also recognizing the broader issues of judicial review of executive action, which have been a persistent concern for presidents, including Trump, who have sought to implement policies via executive orders.
He commented that judges’ decisions are more susceptible to emergency interventions, emphasizing that there’s a considerable debate about how far judges should intervene in this matter.
“I don’t think Blanche’s remarks incite violence,” Blackman clarified. “What I’m trying to convey is that there’s an unusual tension between the executive and judicial branches.”
Former judges expressed alarm regarding the growing threats faced by current judges, including online harassment and physical threats. Reports indicate that the number of such threats in 2025 is set to surpass that of the previous year, which has led Congress to take notice.
A spokesperson for the Justice Department responded that Blanche’s comments reflect ongoing challenges of dealing with what they perceive to be activist judges who aspire to shape national policy from the bench.
“The Department will continue to uphold the Constitution, respect our legal responsibilities, and push back against decisions that threaten public safety or the will of the citizens,” the spokesperson added.
Related News
Researchers Discover Supplement Associated with Slower Aging
Even the Infamous Terror Group Hamas Believes Iran’s Attacks on Neighbors Are Excessive
Security guard hurt in Michigan synagogue car attack identified as a veteran police officer
Suspected leading South American drug lord captured in Bolivia and extradited to the U.S.
Colorado school district may have placed up to 61 male students on girls’ sports teams, according to the Trump administration.
Rams and Raiders are key winners in free agency.