Mobilizing the Legal Profession to Defend the Judiciary

In fall 2024, the Bolch Judicial Institute of Duke Law School hosted a conference as part of its Defending the Judiciary initiative, which aims to mobilize the legal profession to defend judges and the judiciary from a growing wave of unjust and unsubstantiated attacks that threaten judicial independence and diminish public faith in the judicial system.

The conference drew lawyers and judges from around the country for a day and a half of discussions about strategies for defending the judiciary and boosting public understanding of the role of judges and the work of the courts. Recordings of all conference panels as well as additional resources on “How to Respond to Attacks on Judges and the Judiciary” for judges, lawyers, bar associations, and policy-makers can be found on the Bolch Judicial Institute website.

The conference began with the presentation of the Bolch Judicial Institute’s 2024 Raphael Lemkin Rule of Law Guardian Medal to Esther Salas, U.S. district judge for the District of New Jersey, in recognition of her efforts to strengthen laws that protect the physical safety of judges and their families. In the aftermath of the 2020 murder of her son by a former litigant from her courtroom, Salas worked with legislators to pass bipartisan legislation to better protect federal judges and their families. She is now leading efforts to assist states in passing similar laws.

After welcome remarks from Chris Dillon, chief judge of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, panelists tackled a variety of challenges facing the judiciary in a polarized political climate, including threats to judicial independence and public trust in the judicial system, the impact of disinformation and misinformation, and judicial security. Panels focused on solutions and practical advice for what judges, courts, and bar associations can do to address these challenges and the critical role civic education plays in defending the judiciary.

Ringing the Alarm on Threats to the Judiciary

Paul W. Grimm, the David F. Levi Professor of the Practice of Law, director of the Bolch Judicial Institute, and a retired U.S. district judge for the District of Maryland, moderated the first panel, which centered on the increasing threats to the judiciary and the importance of a unified, bipartisan effort to ensure public faith in the judicial system.

Grimm noted that the judicial system and judges are “not above legitimate and fair-minded criticism,” but stressed that the “founding principles that we all believe make our country amazing and unique, where opportunity and hope and aspirations can thrive, depend upon the rule of law.” He added, “There’s not a single right or single matter of our history we can be proud of that was not achieved and maintained through the rule of law.”

Grimm emphasized that unjustified attacks on judges are not new, and that the groups represented by the panelists and conference attendees — American Association for Justice, American Board of Trial Advocates, American College of Trial Lawyers, and Lawyers for Civil Justice, among others — have been working to defend the judiciary for many years. Panelists then discussed how their organizations are working to counter increased misinformation, political polarization, and inflammatory rhetoric through public statements, community outreach, and engagement with policymakers to pass legislation protecting judges and improve public rhetoric about the judiciary.

What Can Judges Do?

While ethics rules often restrict what judges can say about active cases, there is much they can do to speak in defense of the judiciary, the rule of law, and the administration of justice. Karoline Mehalchick, U.S. district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, moderated a discussion about actions judges can take to help improve faith in the courts and public understanding of the role of the judiciary.

Panelists argued that, while judges are not able to talk about specific cases and must refrain from direct engagement in political processes, judges do have the ability and even the responsibility to speak in defense of the judicial system and to advocate for the needs of the courts. The panel also urged judges to collaborate with bar organizations on educational efforts to improve public understanding of the judiciary and raise awareness of the meaning and value of judicial independence.

“We can talk about the idea that what judicial independence means is that you’re going to get predictable results, even if they’re not popular,” said Robert Jonker, U.S. district judge for the Western District of Michigan. “Because that’s what the rule of law requires. It allows capital investment to coalesce. It gives us social stability, all the values that we like. Those are perfectly legitimate topics for us as judges to talk about.”

Matthew Fader, chief justice of Maryland, described his efforts to support state legislation to enhance security for judges and courts in the wake of the assassination of a Maryland judge in 2023.

“I think that’s maybe a more stark case than others of where it is appropriate for us to lobby,” Fader said. “One of those places is certainly our own interests in connection with our operations, with our safety, where we can — and I think should — take an active role in a lobbying effort in order to make sure that we can get the results that we need.”

Managing Security Challenges

Another panel explored specific measures judges and courts can take to improve their own physical safety and that of their courts and their families. In a discussion moderated by Ron Zayas, CEO of Ironwall by Incogni, panelists offered examples such as providing judges with separate, secure parking and remote access to parking gates, improving court screening processes for mail and packages, and encouraging judges to engage home security services, scrub personal information from the internet, and pay attention to — and report — things that seem out of the ordinary.

Two of the panelists — Salas and Joan Lefkow, senior U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Illinois — experienced horrific losses when former litigants targeted their respective homes. Lefkow’s husband and mother were murdered in 2005, and Salas’s 17-year-old son, Daniel Anderl, was murdered in 2020. As they shared their stories, both urged fellow members of the judiciary to take all precautions possible.

“One of the most frustrating things I hear is the statistic that not all the judges are signing up for HIDS, the Home Intrusion Detection System,” Salas said of the program established by the United States Marshals Service in 2005 to provide home security systems for federal judges. “I’ve heard U.S. marshals say, ‘Well, they’re complaining about the reimbursement,’ and I say, ‘What is a life worth to you?’ And if the answer to that question is anything like I know it is — because I know what Daniel’s life is worth, and I’d give mine in a second to trade places — the answer is: Do whatever you have to do to protect your families, period. Full stop.”

Disinformation, Misinformation, and Threats Online

The rise of disinformation on social media has added a new dimension to the safety challenges judges face. Duke Law Professor Shane Stansbury, a member of the North Carolina Bar Association judicial independence committee, moderated a discussion examining how increased threats against judges and decreased public confidence in the courts have paved the way for partisan extremists and international actors to spread disinformation online.

Whether it is flatly false stories about the courts designed to stoke anger over judicial decisions or simply the sharing of bad information online, such campaigns deepen partisan divides, seed public support for political violence, and weaken public trust in the courts and other government institutions.

“More people don’t believe the courts are providing ‘equal justice to all’ than those who do,” said Jesse Rutledge, vice president for public affairs at the National Center for State Courts, citing recent polling on declining public trust in institutions. “That is a major systematic problem that opens up those fissures even greater. [Disinformation campaigns] can pour gasoline on that fire more readily when people feel that way.”

Disinformation relating to judicial elections can be particularly problematic, the panelists noted. Partisan judicial elections can lead to inflammatory rhetoric and stoke public perceptions of the judges as political actors.

“The partisan aspect of judicial elections is not consistent with the oath we take to be impartial,” said Robin Hudson, retired justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. “It’s not consistent with our constitutional provisions that require us to be impartial. All of us involved in helping to try to restore public confidence in the judiciary should be putting whatever kind of influence we can to people who can get partisanship out of judicial elections and selection processes.”

Panelists called for social media platforms to explore greater fact-checking capabilities for AI-produced disinformation as well as proactive communication policies to anticipate and counter the spread of false information. Other recommendations included responsibly leveraging AI to combat misinformation while maintaining freedom of speech and increased civic education to raise the public’s awareness of the judiciary’s critical role in defending democracy.

What Can the Bar Do?

Another panel addressed the idea that lawyers and bar organizations are ethically obligated to speak in defense of the judiciary and the rule of law. In a discussion moderated by Alex Dahl, general counsel of Lawyers for Civil Justice, panelists explored the ways lawyers and bar groups can appropriately and effectively interact with traditional news media, use their personal and professional social media platforms, engage in civic education to improve public understanding of the courts, and speak out when judges are unfairly attacked. Rapid, strategic response is critical in responding to attacks on judges, they emphasized.

Panelists agreed that judges, attorneys, and bar associations must collaborate to strengthen and support judicial independence and sustain a culture of civility and respect between the bar and the bench.

“We, as judges and lawyers, are leaders in our community, and, as such, we must act like leaders,” said Robin Rosenberg, U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Florida. “As leaders, we must exercise civility at all times, particularly when temperatures are high and emotions can get the best of people. We set the tone for how others will act in response to us.”

Barbara Smith, partner and co-chair of the Appellate and Supreme Court Group at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, said lawyers have a particular responsibility to speak respectfully about judges.

“As lawyers, when folks come to us, people we know, our friends and family, and bring up issues of public concern, how we respond matters, because we as lawyers are viewed as having some authority,” she said. “When you’re discussing judicial decisions, don’t name check the judge. It doesn’t matter who decided something, it matters what they decided. Avoid mentioning who appointed a judge or the judge’s party affiliation — not an Obama judge or a Bush judge or a Biden judge or a Clinton judge, not a Republican or Democrat or a red or a blue judge. The process of becoming a judge is political. The act of judging is not.”

What Can Courts Do?

As lawyers and judges work to defend against unfair attacks on judges, courts can also strive to improve their services to the public to enhance transparency, accessibility, and trust. David F. Levi, the James B. Duke and Benjamin N. Duke Dean Emeritus of Duke Law School and president of the American Law Institute, led a discussion on how courts can improve public trust as a way to counter and diffuse attacks on judges.

Panelists highlighted the importance of making courts more user-friendly, with examples such as improved remote proceedings during the pandemic and changes to eviction processes, and emphasized the need for accessible legal aid and reforms that address systemic inequities. They also discussed the need for public information officers to improve communications with the public and the media and to increase transparency.

“The opportunities to make very user-friendly changes in the operation of the system make it possible for us, I think, to have a better message for the people, both for the lawyers and the public,” said Nathan Hecht, retired chief justice of the Supreme Court of Texas. “We can’t talk about our decisions. But we can talk about making the courts user-friendly. We’ve been presented with a lot of opportunities to make positive changes that we can then go take to the people and say, ‘This is how the courts are trying to administer justice where you live,’ and hopefully raise public confidence that way.”

Efforts to adopt “plain-language” opinion writing and to communicate more transparently and effectively with the public could also go a long way toward improving public perceptions, panelists suggested.

Neil Eggleston, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, noted the importance of “getting judges more into the community so that they’re known not just in connection with a particular opinion.” He added that judges should speak at bar association and judicial functions about the operation of the judicial system. “It’s a chance for the members of the bar and the members of the community to see them apart from a preconceived view.”

Civic Education as a Tool to Bolster Faith in the Judiciary

The program concluded with a panel discussion on the role of civic education in enhancing public understanding of the judiciary, fighting misinformation, and maintaining public trust.

Panelists highlighted several judge-led civics programs that connect judges with members of the public, including the Informed Voters Fair Judges Project, youth voter initiatives, teacher training, mobile courts, and the North Carolina Supreme Court’s initiative to hold hearings in counties across the state to provide students and residents the opportunity to see the court in session. Hudson noted that the National Association of Women Judges’ judicial independence committee, which she chairs, has developed jury orientation materials that leverage jury service as a civic education opportunity and help jurors understand their work in the context of our tripartite system of government.

“I think the main message is that you should not have to recreate any new wheel” when getting involved in civics education, said Kimberly Mueller, U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of California, noting that many bar organizations, courts, and judicial groups provide ready-made materials for judges who want to speak to a classroom, bring children to the courthouse, or present in a law school or community setting. “You can find what is the best fit and then tailor it to what your needs are.”

Vince Rozier Jr., a superior court judge in North Carolina’s Wake County, noted that perhaps the best opportunity judges have to boost public trust in the judiciary is by simply treating people in their courtrooms with respect. When judges behave bombastically or demean people in the courtroom, he said, it’s easier for people to come away with feelings of anger and distrust, to see the court as political, and to fall prey to disinformation. “So with civic education, perhaps accountability training for judges may be something that we can utilize,” he said. “What we do in the courtroom and how we conduct ourselves may instill confidence in the public and what our ruling is.”

---

A version of this article appeared in the North Carolina Bar Association’s summer 2025 newsletter.