Judicial Security: Threats Against Federal Judges Hit a Record as the Judiciary Asks Congress for Its Own Protective Force

WASHINGTON — Threats against federal judges reached a record in the fiscal year that ended in September, according to figures released this week by the United States Marshals Service, and the judiciary has gone back to Congress with a request it has made with growing urgency for three years: more money for security, a guarantee that the money reaches the judges, and a say in how the officers assigned to protect them are used. Behind the request lies a structural fact that a series of incidents has made impossible to ignore. The judges who decide cases against the executive branch are protected by an agency of the executive branch.

"We are not asking to be insulated from criticism. We are asking that the people who guard our homes not be reassignable by a party to our cases," a chief district judge who chairs a security committee of the Judicial Conference told The Counsel.

What the data shows

Fiscal year	Judges targeted by threats or inappropriate communications	Notes
2019	179	—
2021	284	Following the 2020 murder of a judge's son at the family home in New Jersey
2023	457	Threats associated with high-profile criminal and election cases
2024	457	Flat; the Service noted a rise in severity
2025	539	Unsolicited deliveries to judges' homes and relatives emerge as an intimidation tactic
2026	612	Record; 41 cases referred for prosecution

The figures count judges targeted, not messages; a judge who receives hundreds of communications is counted once. The Service's report records a shift in method as well as volume. Threats delivered by mail and telephone have been joined by swatting calls that send armed police to a judge's address, by the publication of judges' home addresses and family details on social media, and by the delivery of unsolicited food orders — a practice that began in 2025 and that the Service treats as a message that the sender knows where the judge lives. Judges handling cases involving the executive branch, immigration and election matters account for a disproportionate share.

What the judiciary is asking for

1. Money. The Judicial Conference's request for the coming fiscal year seeks a $185 million increase over current security funding, for court security officers, home intrusion-detection systems for every judge who wants one, and the Administrative Office's program for removing judges' personal information from public sources under the Daniel Anderl Act of 2022.
2. A protected appropriation. Judicial protection is funded within the Marshals Service's budget alongside fugitive apprehension, prisoner transport and witness protection. The Conference asks Congress to carve out judicial security as a separate line that cannot be redirected, after deputies assigned to courts were reassigned to other missions during 2025.
3. A statutory voice. Legislation introduced in both chambers would require the Marshals Service to consult the judiciary before changing protective levels or reassigning deputies from court duties, and to meet standards set by the Conference for judges' home security.
4. Enforcement of the Anderl Act. Data brokers' compliance with removal requests has been uneven; the judiciary asks for a private right of action and penalties.

The harder question

A minority of judges, including several who have been targeted, have argued that none of this is enough while the protective force remains in the executive branch, and have proposed a judicial police under the courts' own control — a model used by some states and by the Supreme Court, which has its own police force. The proposal has been opposed by the Marshals Service, which says its deputies' investigative powers and nationwide presence cannot be replicated, by the Justice Department, which calls it unnecessary, and by members of the Judicial Conference who regard it as a constitutional and budgetary leap the judiciary is not equipped to make. The Conference's formal request stops short of it; the legislation does too.

We are not asking to be insulated from criticism. We are asking that the people who guard our homes not be reassignable by a party to our cases.

A chief district judge, to The Counsel

How Congress has responded

The appropriations bills pending in both chambers include increases for judicial security, though less than the Conference requested, and the Senate bill contains the protected-appropriation language. The consultation legislation has bipartisan sponsors but has not been scheduled. An attempt to attach security funding to the judgeship bill that cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee this week — the JUDGES Act — was withdrawn to keep that bill clean. The Chief Justice devoted part of last year's year-end report to threats against judges and the importance of the rule of law, a theme several circuit chief judges have since repeated in public remarks.

What judges and courts are doing in the meantime

• Address removal. More than two-thirds of federal judges have enrolled in the Anderl Act program; the judiciary urges the rest to do so and offers the same protection to court staff in some districts.
• Home security. Intrusion systems have been installed at most judges' homes; the request would cover the remainder and recurring monitoring.
• Threat training. The Marshals Service and the Federal Judicial Center run courses for judges and families on recognizing and reporting threats.
• Courthouse measures. Court security officers, screening and secure parking are funded through the judiciary's own budget, which is why the appropriation matters.

The Counsel will report the appropriations outcome and the consultation bill's progress. Threats against judges and court staff should be reported to the Marshals Service's threat management center; the Service's report notes that the cases referred for prosecution this year began with a report.

This report is for general information only and is not legal advice. Figures are as reported by the United States Marshals Service and the Judicial Conference.