Judicial Org Ignored Threats Until They Affected Constitution Haters

The Federal Judges Association (FJA) is shopping around a cryptic press release decrying, “Threats to the federal judiciary,” without naming any actual threats.

“Recent events are a clear and urgent reminder that federal judges play a crucial role in upholding our democracy as guardians of the rule of law,” the press release reads.

What recent events specifically? I asked the FJA in an email. It did not respond.  

The release mentions “the rise in criticism, threats and violence aimed at members of the judiciary,” and adds, “Irresponsible rhetoric shrouded in disinformation undermines the public’s confidence that our justice system can fulfill its constitutional duties.”

But the FJA can’t be talking just about words, can they? Judges are accustomed to hearing criticism. In almost every decision, at least one party is going to be disappointed. Thanks to free speech, people are allowed to say so when they don’t like what judges do. It must be something bigger than words because historically, FJA has been unmoved by breaches in judicial security.

If the FJA has a lick of concern about judicial safety it would have spoken out in 2022 when a gunman waited at the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a planned murder-suicide. That man, Nicholas Roske, abandoned his plan and turned himself in. His trial is set for later this year. Where was the FJA then? Crickets.

FJA was also silent when intimidating pro-abortion leftists protested at the homes of Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, and Kavanaugh in 2022 after the court’s Dobbs decision set into motion the overturning of Roe v. Wade.  

Fortunately, the propaganda press has been able to decode this week’s FJA press release. Perhaps through mind reading, or some communications lackey with press marching orders, the press have decided it is about Elon Musk and Republicans.   

“Musk and other GOP officials in recent weeks have accused judges who ruled against the government of having political biases and being ‘corrupt’ and ‘radical,’” Avalon Zoppo, an appellate courts reporter, wrote Wednesday in the National Law Journal. “Republican lawmakers filed formal impeachment resolutions against U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York, who temporarily cut off the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) access to Treasury payment systems, as well as Judges Amir Ali and John Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.”

Reuters reporters Peter Eisler, Mike Spector, Ned Parker, and Nate Raymond make the same argument in their piece, also published Wednesday, “Judges face rise in threats as Musk blasts them over rulings.” In it they wrote, “In recent weeks, Musk, congressional Republicans and other top allies of U.S. President Donald Trump have called for the impeachment of some federal judges or attacked their integrity in response to court rulings that have slowed the Trump administration’s moves to dismantle entire government agencies and fire tens of thousands of workers.”

The FJA says the security of federal judges “is fundamental to their ability to uphold the rule of law, and to fulfill their constitutional duty without fear or undue influence.”

Despite ignoring the intimidation of picketing at a judge’s home, FJA said in its release that “Judges must be permitted to do their jobs without fear of violence or intimidation of any kind.”

It is nice that FJA is suddenly showing concern for judges, even those who make decisions outside all common sense or the constitutional framework.

As my colleague John Daniel Davidson pointed out, the Constitution provides for a separation of the three branches of government. The court cannot ignore the president’s separate but equal authority, yet decisions by Constitution-hating judges have been interfering with Trump’s agenda, including blocking a spending freeze while Trump’s people review spending on junky projects citizens may not wish to fund.

“Lower courts don’t have authority to usurp the executive branch through restraining orders and injunctions, no matter what the SCOTUS says,” Davidson wrote. But that is exactly what is happening right now.

There is a reason for the difference between FJA’s objection to Musk’s harmless social media posts, and FJA’s previous inaction in 2022, when agitated people physically went to the homes of justices. FJA loves Constitution haters — radically leftist judges who consistently make decisions in step with their personal politics, twisting instead of interpreting the law.  

FJA’s leadership leans left. Of the 14 judges making up FJA’s board of officers and executive committee, just three were nominated by a Republican — former President George W. Bush. The rest were nominated by Democrats, one nominated by former President Joe Biden, five nominated by former President Bill Clinton, and five nominated by former President Barack Obama.

Judge Julianna Michelle Childs is the FJA board president, putting her in the position to steer the group’s agenda. She was appointed by Biden in 2022 to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. She has a left-leaning record. In 2014, before the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, “Judge Childs issued a landmark decision recognizing a same-sex marriage in South Carolina. Her ruling contravened binding Supreme Court precedent,” according to a First Liberty backgrounder detailing her work.

During Covid-19, Childs ruled mandatory vaccination is a “legitimate condition of employment.” In 2020, on of Childs’ decisions changed election rules regarding signatures on mail-in ballots. That decision was reversed by the Supreme Court.

We must push back hard against any threat to the public’s right to speak freely about corruption in the courts. Lawfare exists. Judges must not pretend they are above it. There are far too many examples of judicial corruption for anyone to believe the judiciary is the one segment in the world free of malfeasance.

Beth Brelje is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. She is an award-winning investigative journalist with decades of media experience.