By Brian Butler
Recent events reflect a troubling trend: intimidation tactics directed at members of the judiciary—ranging from coordinated online harassment and doxing to courthouse disruptions and false emergency reports, or “swatting” —that are inconsistent with lawful advocacy and threaten judicial independence. These tactics aim to chill impartial decision-making through fear and disruption, to pressure courts outside established legal process, and to erode public confidence that disputes will be resolved by evidence and law rather than coercion. These tactics are affronts to the rule of law and to the independence of the judiciary upon which our constitutional system depends. As lawyers and officers of the court, we have a special obligation to condemn such conduct unequivocally and to reaffirm the fundamental principle that the avenue for challenging a decision is through the courts—by motion, by petition, and by appeal—not by threats, harassment, or coercion.
The rule of law is not a slogan; it is the architecture of ordered liberty. It rests on the premise that disputes are resolved by neutral decision-makers applying established legal principles to facts presented through fair process. Judicial independence is the keystone of that structure. Judges must be free to decide cases based on the law and the record, not on fear of reprisal. Attempts to intimidate judges, parties, or counsel are an attack not only on individuals, but on the integrity of the adjudicative process itself. When intimidation substitutes for argument, we do not merely risk bad outcomes—we risk the collapse of public confidence in the courts as impartial arbiters. As Chief Justice Roberts noted in his 2024 Year End Report, “there has been a significant uptick in identified threats at all levels of the judiciary,” including close relatives of federal judges being shot to death in 2005 and 2020, and state judges in Wisconsin and Maryland murdered in their homes in 2022 and 2023.
Swatting, threats, and harassment endanger lives, divert critical public safety resources, chill participation in public service, and undermine the administration of justice. They also burden the very communities these courts serve, from families startled awake by police lights to neighborhoods closed off by emergency response. The consequences are real, immediate, and indiscriminate. No matter one’s views on the merits of any case, there can be no tolerance for conduct that weaponizes fear or exploits emergency systems to pressure judicial officers.
As members of the Federal Court Bar Association for the Northern District of New York, we can lead by example. First, we must continue to model ethical advocacy rooted in facts, law, and respect for opposing parties and the tribunal. Second, we should educate clients and the public about the appellate path as the disciplined and lawful means of seeking redress. The appellate process is designed to be rigorous, public, and principled, offering reasoned explanations that both guide the bench and bar and inform the public. This process, though sometimes demanding and slow, is the constitutional remedy for disagreement. It channels dissent into advocacy, fosters clarity through reasoned opinions, and strengthens the law by subjecting decisions to scrutiny in a setting where all parties are heard and the law develops transparently. Third, we can support security and wellness measures for court personnel and advocate for the resources necessary to protect the judiciary without impeding public access to the courts. Finally, we can elevate the public conversation: when civic discourse becomes heated, lawyers can help re-center it on evidence, precedent, and principle. Toward that end, I look forward to participating with many of my FCBA colleagues in the NDNY’s Law Day educational events focused on this year’s theme, “The Rule of Law and the American Dream” – which reminds us that without the supremacy of the law, this country, as we know it, would not exist.
The integrity of the federal courts has long depended on a shared commitment to constitutional order and professional norms. That commitment is tested when decisions are controversial or politically charged. In those moments, our duty is clearest. We reaffirm that disagreement is the lifeblood of a free society, but it must be expressed within the channels the law provides. We condemn intimidation in all its forms. And we stand with our judges, colleagues, court staff, and law enforcement partners in defending the rule of law so that justice can be done without fear or favor.
The path forward is the one our system prescribes: reasoned advocacy, conscientious trial practice, and principled appellate review. Let us meet this moment with resolve, demonstrating—through our words and our work—that the rule of law remains the surest guardian of our rights and the firmest foundation of our democracy.