During his initial term, President Trump didn’t hesitate to make personal attacks against federal judges he disagreed with. In one notable instance from February 2017, he referred to U.S. District Judge James L. Robart as “the so-called judge,” particularly after Robart temporarily suspended Trump’s travel ban.
Fast forward to his second term, and Trump upped the ante. In an all-caps message from 2025, he labeled a judge as “a US-hating judge who suffers from illness and has an extremely dangerous ideology for our country.”
Presidents have historically expressed dissatisfaction with unfavorable court rulings, yet Trump stands out for his direct personal attacks on judges. This behavior has disrupted longstanding norms regarding the respect a president typically has for the judicial branch, potentially leading to significant repercussions.
The most alarming development? Federal judges now face physical threats. Reports indicate that the situation has worsened since Trump’s first term.
This year alone, the former U.S. Marshals Service—tasked with protecting federal judges—investigated almost 400 threats against judges, with 162 of them facing direct threats between March 1 and April 14.
Some of the recent threats include bizarre instances such as unsolicited pizza deliveries to judges’ homes, a troubling tactic targeting the family of U.S. District Judge Estelle Salas, whose son was murdered.
In response to these growing concerns, Congressional Democrats have introduced the Marshall Act. This proposed legislation seeks to shift the oversight of the Marshals Service from the executive branch to the judicial branch. If enacted, it would be supervised by a board that includes justices from the U.S. Supreme Court, aiming to strengthen the safety of federal judges.
Such a transfer of authority would not only enhance protection but could also prevent potential constitutional crises. For one, there have been serious issues when Trump’s administration ignored federal judicial orders related to funding and press freedoms, raising fears about compliance with court decisions.
The troubling dynamic is that enforcement mechanisms, like the Marshals Service, have been hampered by the executive branch’s oversight. Under Trump’s direction, this agency has been instructed not to enforce court orders, effectively neutralizing judicial power during contentious times.
Shifting Marshals oversight could empower federal judges to ensure their orders are upheld and mitigate the risk of Trump halting protections for significant judicial figures—a concern underscored by his previous actions in stripping security details from individuals like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former National Security Advisor John Bolton.
Chief Justice Roberts recently emphasized the crucial need for an independent judiciary, as the system of checks and balances appears to be eroding. In light of this, passing the Marshall Act would help bolster judicial independence, enabling judges to function without the looming threat of retaliation.
In summary, the move could fortify the judicial branch, allowing for decision-making free from outside pressures and enhancing overall legal integrity.
