Trump Trials Heighten Security Risks for Vulnerable Judiciary

False reports of shootings or bomb threats at two judges presiding over cases involving former President Donald Trump highlight the security challenges for the judiciary as the 2024 White House contender faces trials in multiple courthouses.

Courts around the country are bracing for what former law enforcement officials say will be unprecedented security challenges as they prepare to host trials of an ex-president and current candidate, who isn’t shy about making the judiciary a target of his anger on social media.

“We haven’t had anything like this,” said Judge Paul Grimm, a retired federal judge in Maryland and current director of Duke Law’s Bolch Judicial Institute.

Courthouses must navigate how to usher Trump in and out of the buildings safely and protect jurors and other court staff, while preserving public and press access to the trial itself. Trump is also sure to make the trial a key issue in his presidential campaign, including by holding press conferences and making statements outside the courthouse.

“A former president — and a presidential candidate no less — poses very special problems,” said Judge Shira Scheindlin, who spent over two decades as a judge on the Manhattan-based US District Court for the Southern District of New York. “It is different than any other high-profile case because this man is running for president.”

Trump faces election obstruction charges in Washington federal court and in a Georgia state court in Atlanta. He has also been charged in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida with mishandling of classified documents after leaving office and in a state court in Manhattan with hiding hush-money payments. He could face trial on those charges as early as this March, and Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Judge James Boasberg, chief judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, said the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse has begun security preparations for the trial that’s set for March 4.

“We at the court are certainly mindful of the security implications that a trial like this involves, and we are doing our best to balance the right of the public and media to observe the trial with ensuring safety for everyone in the building,” Boasberg said of the election interference case, which could be delayed by appeals.

The Washington federal courthouse is accustomed to high-profile government cases and heightened security. It’s been the main venue for criminal trials related to the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capitol, and it’s where the Watergate cases unfolded.

Read More: US Marshals’ Blind Spots Leave Judges Vulnerable to Threats

Security Challenges

Road closures around courthouses, physical barriers directing foot traffic, and perhaps extra metal detectors outside of courtrooms are all likely during the trials, along with additional threat monitoring for the judges overseeing the cases, according to former officials with the US Marshals Service, which is tasked with protecting federal courthouses and judges.

Washington got a glimpse of those measures Jan. 9, when Trump made an appearance before the DC Circuit, which was hearing arguments over whether he should be immune from prosecution. Snowplows lined the streets near the courthouse as makeshift barricades, and officers conspicuously patrolled the perimeter of the building.

A full trial presents further challenges than a one-day hearing. And unlike in civil cases, where lawyers often argue issues without their high-profile clients present, the courthouses would need to prepare for Trump to attend his criminal trials in-person.

His presence will present additional security challenges, said Carl Caulk, former Marshals Service assistant director.

The timing of the trials during an election year also exacerbates security concerns.

“This has political significance. It’s also going to come on the heels of a general election, which obviously raises concerns with the political environment we are in. So, we plan accordingly,” said Jon Trainum, the retired chief of the protective operation programs at the Marshals Service.

The presence of a former president — and current candidate — with a Secret Service detail will also throw another law enforcement group into the mix of agencies that also include the Homeland Security Department’s Federal Protective Service and local police.

The involvement of multiple agencies can pose additional challenges, said John Muffler, the former chief inspector with the Marshals’ judicial security division.

“Any time you’re dealing with human beings and decision making, you’re trying to make it as clear as possible what your roles and responsibilities are. But when you add multiple parties into that who are answering to different leadership in their own departments, you need to have commanding control somewhere,” Muffler said.

When it comes to security for state courts, which are often protected by the county sheriff’s office, resources can vary widely depending on the state or county, said Nathan Hall, an architect and court security consultant with the National Center for State Courts. Though New York’s state court system is no stranger to high-profile cases, some state courts may have more limited resources or smaller courtroom spaces, which could pose challenges for trials that generate a lot of public and press interest, he said.

Heightened Threats

The trials come as the number of substantiated threats against federal judges have increased in recent years, from 178 in 2019 to 311 in 2022, according to data obtained from the Marshals Service through a public records request.

In Jan. 5 remarks, Attorney General Merrick Garland warned of a “deeply disturbing spike” in threats against public officials, including federal judges and members of Congress, even as homicide rates have dipped nationally.

Recent incidents against the judges overseeing Trump’s cases illustrate that trend. On the morning of Jan. 11, hours before closing arguments in a civil case where Trump stands accused of falsifying financial documents, , Justice Arthur Engoron of New York state court was subject to a so-called swatting call after a bomb threat was reported at his home. That case is separate from the criminal one over hush-money payments.

DC District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who was randomly assigned to preside over Trump’s 2020 election case, was also targeted in a swatting call on Jan. 7, after police responded to a false report of a shooting at her residence. Last year, a Texas woman was charged with leaving Chutkan a voicemail threatening to kill her, shortly after Chutkan was assigned the case.

Women and minorities are more likely to be harassed and threatened than their white male counterparts, according to a November study by CivicPulse, in partnership with Princeton University’s Bridging Divides Initiative. The Texas woman charged with threatening Chutkan, who is Black, included racist slurs in her voicemail.

This could discourage women and people of color from seeking or holding those positions, said Lilliana Mason, a political science professor at Johns Hopkins University who studies political violence and partisanship in the US.

Grimm, the retired Maryland federal judge, called on bar associations to do more to speak out against violence against judges.

“The public should be proud that there are judges who are willing to accept these positions and behave under circumstances and stress that’s just unimaginable,” Grimm said.

—With assistance from Beth Wang