Chief Judges Ramp Up Efforts to Bolster Security as Threats Rise

US District Judge Patrick Schiltz has pushed the emergency button summoning more security to his Minnesota courtroom twice in recent months after defendants’ family members became unruly during sentencing hearings.

That’s something Schiltz never had to do before in his nearly 18 years as a judge. And it’s not just inside his courtroom that’s getting more dangerous: his Minneapolis courthouse’s list of banned people “is probably as long as it’s ever been,” Schiltz said.

As chief judge, Schiltz has to think about judges’ security both inside and beyond the courthouse, pushing him into an unfamiliar role as advocate and lobbyist for legislation protecting judges’ personal information.

“We’re judges. We’re not politicians, and we’re not PR directors,” he said. “Raising awareness is not something we’re really well equipped to do.”

Like Schiltz, chief judges of US district courts around the country say they’re increasingly focused on security as threats against those who serve on the bench have risen, elevating the need for greater protections.

A background in security isn’t part of the job description for chief judges, who, by statute, are usually the most senior judges on their court under the age of 65.

In interviews, a half dozen chief judges at federal trial courts across the country described increasing security training for judges and staff in their courts, spreading the word about resources available to judges to protect themselves, and making the issue a bigger focus of staff meetings.

Recent attacks—including the murder of the son of a New Jersey federal trial judge nearly four years ago—have left judges on edge.

Shortly after the attack on that judge’s family, Chief Judge Kimberly Mueller of the Eastern District of California recalled receiving an unexpected package on her front porch. She called the US Marshals Service, the Justice Department agency in charge of judicial security, which found it had simply been misdelivered.

“It’s top of mind for all of us,” Mueller said in an interview.

Time Spent

Of anyone who Richard Sullivan speaks to as chair of the Judicial Conference’s security committee, he said chief judges are “probably the most important audience.”

Sullivan, a judge with the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, receives calls from chief judges weekly with questions about how to handle security issues for the courthouse or individual judges, or about various security programs.

“Chief judges really are, in many ways, responsible for the physical security of a courthouse,” Sullivan said.

It’s a responsibility that’s become more challenging as threats rise. The Marshals Service investigated over 450 threats against them in 2023—a 155% increase compared to 2019.

Chief Judge Dana Sabraw of the US District Court for the Southern District of California attributed the increase to social media, the current political environment, and politicians feeling freer to criticize judges by name in ways they previously didn’t.

“There’s been a general politicization of the judiciary, and a characterization—I think, inaccurate—that judges are politicians in robes,” Sabraw said. “There’s a misapprehension, I fear, in the public generally that has caused this spike.”

Some chief judges said they’ve found themselves spending more time handling security issues than they expected, or than their predecessors did.

Sabraw said he initiated more Marshals-led training sessions to educate staff about what to do in emergency situations, such as for bomb threats or active shooters.

Judge Timothy Corrigan of the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, who has served as chief judge since 2020, said the issue of judicial security “has occupied me more than I thought it would.”

Corrigan knows the risks firsthand: he survived an assassination attempt more than 15 years ago, after a man he had sentenced shot a bullet into his home that missed his head by just inches.

Judges in his district will hear from a representative from the threat assessment unit for the court system’s administrative arm during an all-hands meeting this summer. Discussion topics on the agenda include cybersecurity, what constitutes a threat, and how judges should respond.

Corrigan recently started receiving monthly reports from the US Marshals on threats against judges and court personnel in his judicial district. He’s thinking about sharing it more widely with other judges in the court.

“That might bring home what we’re dealing with a little bit more,” Corrigan said.

Lobbying Lawmakers

Security concerns have also prompted chief judges to lobby state legislatures.

Schiltz formed a committee of judges to work with state judges and the Minnesota legislature to enact a law protecting judges’ information online. He said it was the first time, to his knowledge, that the court has been formally involved in lobbying the legislature.

James Bredar, who recently retired as chief judge of a Maryland federal trial court, testified before his state legislature earlier this year in favor of a similar bill. It was named for Andrew Wilkinson, a Maryland state court judge murdered in his driveway last year.

Judges bound by a strict code of ethics typically steer clear of political and policy debates. But this instance was “an exception,” Bredar said.

“When there’s a threat out there that, if not addressed, is going to impair the capacity of the third branch of government perform its core function in our constitutional system, then judges, I don’t think, have the option of remaining quiet,” Bredar said in an interview in April, during the final month of his nearly seven-year term as chief judge of the US District Court for the District of Maryland.

Turning Point

Several chief judges pointed to the July 2020 murder of New Jersey federal trial court judge Esther Salas’ 20-year-old son by a man posing as a delivery driver as a turning point for the judiciary and how it thinks about security.

The attack was also a wake-up call for Congress, which passed legislation in 2022 named for Salas’ son Daniel Anderl, that prohibited data brokers from selling or trading judges’ personally identifying information, and the federal government from making that information public.

The judiciary has worked to help judges remove personal information from the internet and changed its home security system for judges following a scathing government watchdog report, switching from using one specific system to allowing judges to choose their own systems and be reimbursed.

Judges and others in the legal community are pressing states for similar legislation prohibiting local governments from publicizing judges’ personal information.

Chief judges said they encourage colleagues to take advantage of new resources, some with a goal of getting 100% enrollment in the home security program, made easier now that judges can seek reimbursement for the system they select.

They’ve made some progress. The number of judges enrolled in the program has grown from roughly half to two thirds of the 2,700 federal judges between fiscal 2021 and February 2024, according to data obtained from the Marshals Service through a Freedom of Information Act request.