Behnke
Judges in the United States are under a sustained, coordinated attack. Their photographs have been posted online by senior government officials. The president has disparaged them by name. Their rulings have been met not with appeals but with calls for impeachment and, in some cases, with outright defiance. This pressure on judges is personal, targeted and designed to undermine a justice system that should work for everyone.
This is not a partisan concern. It is a structural one. Judicial independence is not a privilege of the judiciary — it is a safeguard for everyone who might one day need a court to stand between them and power.
There is precedent for heated rhetoric directed at the courts from across the political spectrum. In 2020, Sen. Chuck Schumer drew bipartisan criticism for remarks directed at Supreme Court justices — comments he acknowledged and apologized for the following day.
Episodes like that underscore a broader principle: criticism of the courts must remain within bounds that preserve, rather than erode, the institution itself.
What distinguishes the present moment is not that criticism exists but how sustained, personalized and institutionally reinforced it has become.
After the Supreme Court struck down tariffs imposed by the president, Chief Justice John Roberts warned that violence, intimidation, disinformation and threats to defy court orders undermine judicial independence.
At an event at Rice University in March, he acknowledged that while judicial opinions are rightly subject to analysis and critique, “personally directed hostility is dangerous, and it’s got to stop.”
That distinction matters. Disagreement with a ruling is part of a constitutional system. Personal attacks meant to intimidate judges are not.
That is why ethics guidance issued by the U.S. Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct matters more than its careful language might suggest.
Advisory Opinion No. 118 does not authorize judges to become political actors. It makes clear that judges may speak publicly about judicial security, court funding, judicial independence and the rule of law. The opinion provides, in limited circumstances, space for the measured defense of judicial colleagues against illegitimate criticism that risks undermining the courts. At the same time, it reinforces clear guardrails: judges must remain impartial and avoid demeaning or partisan rhetoric.
What is happening to courts right now goes beyond ordinary disagreement.
In several recent cases, the executive branch has taken positions that would significantly limit courts’ ability to review certain exercises of executive power — arguments that, if accepted, would narrow the practical scope of judicial review. At the same time, senior officials have used public platforms to criticize judges in personal terms, while members of Congress have held hearings on “rogue judges,” introduced impeachment resolutions, and proposed reductions to court funding and staffing tied to specific judicial actions.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has proposed a rule that would allow it to intervene in state bar disciplinary proceedings involving current and former DOJ lawyers — a change that could unsettle long-standing norms designed to protect the independence of the legal profession and its role in the judicial system. Across the country, state legislatures are also expanding political control over judicial appointments and discipline.
A judiciary that fears retaliation cannot provide equal justice under the law. And that puts every American at risk.
While the new ethics guidance is addressed to judges, it also raises an unavoidable question for lawyers.
Lawyers are not simply service providers for clients. They are officers of the court — a designation that carries a duty to the integrity of the legal system itself. The organized bar has not been silent. The American Bar Association and many state and local bar associations have spoken out in defense of judicial independence and condemned attacks on judges and the legal profession. Lawyers nationwide have acted publicly in defense of the rule of law. More is required.
We must be explicit about what practical defense can look like. Bar associations, legal organizations and individual lawyers can:
—Educate the public about why attacks on courts matter in everyday life, not just constitutional theory.
—Amplify measured judicial voices and explain the difference between legitimate critique and intimidation.
—Build partnerships with civic and community organizations so the defense of judicial independence extends beyond the legal profession.
—Provide institutional and public support for judges and lawyers targeted for doing their jobs.
—Adhere to longstanding professional norms that sustain the rule of law.
—Engage legislators and public officials when actions threaten the integrity or independence of the courts.
—Use advocacy, including amicus briefs and public leadership, to defend the role of courts as a coequal branch of government.
The rule of law is not self-executing. It never has been. It survives only when those entrusted with it choose to defend it. It depends on judges willing to decide cases without fear — and lawyers willing to defend the system that makes that independence possible.
When judges are targeted for doing their jobs, lawyers and all of us have a responsibility to stand with them — not for the sake of the judiciary alone but for the rights of everyone the courts exist to protect.
ABOUT THE WRITER
Michelle A. Behnke is the president of the American Bar Association. She wrote this for InsideSources.com.
Local journalism matters, and your support makes it possible. You can help sustain this work by making a donation or choosing one of our subscription options. Subscribers enjoy valuable benefits, including full access to our e-edition, a reduced ad experience on timesleader.com, and more.
Your support helps ensure independent, high-quality local news remains available today and for future generations. Thank you for standing with local journalism.
ABOUT THE WRITER
Michelle A. Behnke is the president of the American Bar Association. She wrote this for InsideSources.com.