Why the Legal Profession Must Defend Targeted Judges

A growing number of public attacks on federal judges has prompted renewed calls from legal professionals and judicial oversight bodies for stronger institutional responses to protect judicial independence, with the American Bar Association and the U.S. Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct emphasizing that while disagreement is inherent in the legal system, targeted intimidation of judges crosses a line that demands collective action.

The concern was highlighted in a statement posted on April 13, 2024, by the Daily Independent, which warned that when judges are subjected to harassment, threats, or public vilification aimed at influencing their rulings, the legal profession bears a responsibility to defend the integrity of the judiciary. The statement framed such actions not as legitimate criticism but as deliberate efforts to undermine public trust in the courts through intimidation.

Legal ethics experts point to Advisory Opinion No. 118 issued by the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility as a key reference point. The opinion clarifies that while lawyers may criticize judicial decisions, they must refrain from participating in or amplifying campaigns that seek to coerce judges through threats, harassment, or sustained public vilification. Such conduct, the opinion states, may violate Model Rules of Professional Conduct related to candor toward the tribunal and the duty to uphold the integrity of the legal profession.

The U.S. Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct has also weighed in, reinforcing that federal judges are bound by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which requires them to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in both their professional and personal conduct. While the code does not regulate external actors, the Conference has increasingly emphasized that threats against judges constitute a threat to the judicial system itself and warrant coordinated responses from bar associations, law schools and judicial councils.

Chief Justice John Roberts has previously warned about the dangers of politicizing the judiciary, noting in his 2022 year-end report that public confidence in the Supreme Court depends on the perception that justices decide cases based on law, not politics or external pressure. Although he did not reference specific incidents in that report, his broader remarks have been cited by judicial watchdogs as underscoring the need for vigilance against efforts to erode institutional legitimacy.

Michelle A. Behnke, a legal ethics scholar and former chair of the ABA’s Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, has written extensively on the distinction between protected speech and unethical intimidation. In a 2023 law review article, she argued that while the First Amendment protects robust criticism of judicial decisions, it does not shield conduct designed to instill fear or retaliate against judges for unpopular rulings. She emphasized that lawyers, as officers of the court, have a special obligation to model respect for judicial independence even when they disagree with outcomes.

The issue has gained renewed attention amid rising political polarization and increased scrutiny of high-profile court decisions, particularly those involving voting rights, reproductive health, and executive authority. In several instances, judges have reported receiving threats following rulings in politically charged cases, prompting the U.S. Marshals Service to increase protective details for certain jurists. While such measures address immediate safety concerns, legal leaders stress that long-term protection of judicial independence requires cultural and professional norms that reject intimidation as a tactic.

The American Bar Association has encouraged state and local bar associations to issue guidance reminding members that professional discipline may apply to lawyers who engage in or encourage harassment of judges. Some jurisdictions have begun reviewing whether existing rules on attorney conduct sufficiently address digital harassment campaigns, including social media campaigns that target judges with demeaning or threatening language.

Judicial independence remains a cornerstone of the U.S. Constitutional system, ensuring that courts can act as a check on the other branches of government without fear of reprisal. As threats to judges evolve in the digital age — ranging from online smear campaigns to in-person confrontations — legal professionals are being urged to uphold their role not only as advocates but as guardians of the institution they serve. The consensus among oversight bodies is clear: disagreement is not only acceptable but essential to a functioning legal system; however, when disagreement turns into intimidation, the profession must respond.