US Marshals Deployments Strain Court Resources as Threats Rise

The Trump administration’s move to deploy US Marshals Service officers for immigration enforcement and local crime operations has worsened staffing shortages at the agency tasked with protecting federal judges, as the judiciary faces rising threats and flat budgets.

Several federal judges said they’ve had to keep the shortages in mind when scheduling criminal proceedings to ensure there are enough deputy US marshals to transport defendants and guard courtrooms. Some said hearings have been canceled and rescheduled, or moved to be held virtually, because of the shortage.

This staffing issue may be aggravated by diversions of officers to other missions, judges said. Three federal judges said their courts have had Marshals Service officers deployed from their districts to assist with federal immigration enforcement or policing local crime.

One judge said deputy marshals have been detailed from the judge’s district to Washington to help protect Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Deputy marshals have also continued to be pulled to protect the US Supreme Court justices, some judges said. Lawmakers also authorized the Marshals Service and the Supreme Court police to protect former justices in a sprawling annual defense policy bill the House passed last week.

The Marshals’ personnel crunch is one of several security resource challenges described in interviews by more than half a dozen current and former judges in courts across the US, including antiquated and broken equipment. Many shared their concerns on condition of anonymity for security reasons.

“We are asking our US marshals to do more with less,” said Judge Esther Salas of the District of New Jersey, who has spearheaded efforts to boost judicial security after the murder of her son five years ago by a disgruntled litigant. “When you’re being pulled away, and you’re being asked to do tasks, you can’t be in two places at one time.”

Still, it’s not unusual for the Marshals Service to be asked to support missions outside its usual scope, said Jon Trainum, the agency’s former chief of protective operations within the judicial security division.

“We have always found a way to do more with less. Whenever we are asked to do something, it would be a strain on our responses. It would be a strain on the districts’ personnel, because we have to rely on them for bodies,” Trainum said.

The resource strains come as threats to judges are rising, and tensions are escalating between the judicial branch and Donald Trump’s administration. The Justice Department’s second-in-command Todd Blanche described a “war” on “rogue judges” at a conservative legal conference last month.

It also follows warnings to Congress from top judiciary officials earlier this year that hiring freezes and staffing losses at the Marshals Service could affect judges’ safety.

Judges’ jobs are “fundamentally important to the functioning of government under the Constitution,” said Philip Pro, a retired Nevada federal judge and a member of Keep Our Republic’s Article III Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates for judicial independence.

If courthouses are unsafe, “that damages the ability of the courts to deliver justice under the rule of law,” he said.

Marshals spokesperson Brady McCarron said the agency has 2,900 deputy marshals who “are routinely called upon to support operational surges” in other district offices.

The agency also relies on court security officers and contracted detention officers “to augment the assigned Deputy U.S. Marshals during periodic operation increases,” he said.

Funding woes

The judiciary is now months into its fourth consecutive year without a significant increase for security for lower court judges. While the branch recently secured additional funding to protect the US Supreme Court justices, the federal trial and appeals courts have gone without.

Multiple judges said in interviews their courthouses have outdated or even nonfunctioning security cameras, and not enough of them, leaving blind spots in buildings.

Some described broken or outdated key card systems, parking lot gates, and screening equipment. Other concerns included vulnerable exteriors, such as glass that isn’t shatter-proof, and structural problems, such as insufficient hallway space to separate jurors from the public.

Separate funding the judiciary received in fiscal 2023 for “courthouse hardening,” or shoring up exteriors like windows and fencing, is expected to run out soon, according to the judiciary’s administrative office.

Meanwhile, threats are on the rise. The Marshals Service, which saw its budget trimmed two years ago, has tracked 131 threats against federal judges since the beginning of October. Dozens of judges have received unsolicited pizzas deliveries to their residences this year, a signal intended to show the sender knows where the judge lives.

Second Circuit Judge Richard Sullivan, who chairs the Judicial Conference’s security committee, said in a statement he’s “very concerned” about a judicial security funding shortfall amid the rising threats.

“We have aging and outdated systems and equipment in courthouses around the country that need to be replaced,” he said. “If security funding is frozen for another year, we will have to make further cuts that will prevent us from doing that.”

Both the House and Senate proposed spending bills for this fiscal year that would fully fund the judiciary’s security request and increase funding for the Marshals Service.

Last month, Congress also provided an extra $28 million for the protection of Supreme Court justices and an extra $30 million to the US Marshals Service for “protective operations” in a short-term funding extension, which could help alleviate the pressure.

The stopgap measure expires at the end of January, and it’s unclear when or if Congress will reach a deal to fund the full year.

Current and former judges praised Congress’ decision to provide more high court security funding in last month’s bill, but they lamented that trial and appeals courts were excluded. They noted lower court judges are uniquely vulnerable to security threats, as they handle thousands of cases, including those brought by pro se litigants.

“The lower courts are standing on the front lines protecting democracy, and we’re the ones that are very vulnerable right now,” Salas said.