Judicial Independence and Why We Should Care
'We can help bridge the knowledge gap about our institutions by going out and explaining the role of courts, by showing how independence protects everyone, and by reinforcing that the judiciary is accountable through law, not through politics.'
Judge Beth Bloom
(Editor’s Note: The following is the text of a speech delivered by U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom at the Federal Bar Association’s Broward County Chapter installation ceremony. In her remarks, Judge Bloom issues a call to action, warning that judicial independence is under increasing threat and urging lawyers to defend the integrity of the courts. The speech has been lightly edited for clarity and length.)
Today, I want to take a moment to talk about a principle that underpins every case you argue, every judgment we render, and every right protected — judicial independence. This is not just a judge issue. Now more than ever, we must show the public together why judicial independence matters and emphasize our collective responsibility to defend this foundational constitutional principle.
An independent judiciary ensures that every person receives a fair hearing, and a decision based on law, not on fear or favor. Without it, the promises of equal justice under law become fragile, subject to political pressure, public opinion, and private influence. Our justice system draws its legitimacy from one fundamental promise: that when you walk into a courtroom, the law — not politics nor money — will decide your fate. This promise depends entirely on the public’s trust that judges will follow the evidence and the Constitution, regardless of whether their decisions make headlines, spark outrage, or please the rich and powerful.
As Justice Anthony Kennedy aptly stated, “Judicial independence is not conferred so judges can do as they please. Judicial independence is conferred so judges can do as they must.”
Unfortunately, judicial independence is under assault. In recent years, we have routinely heard false claims from politicians, the media, and ordinary citizens that courts are just another political battlefield, that judges who issue inconvenient rulings are merely partisan actors overstepping their constitutional authority and undermining the separation of powers, all to score political points for the party of their choice. And some people do not understand why their political or moral view on an issue is rejected by unelected judges. That misunderstanding breeds mistrust, which is inflamed by some politicians who accuse judges of being un-American or corrupt based solely on the judges’ ruling. For some, mistrust breeds contempt, and some seek to do harm. However, we must all have the courage to say these false claims and threats aren’t just wrong — they strike at the very foundation of what separates a nation of laws from a nation where might makes right.
Let me be clear, criticism of the government, including judges and their decisions is not just permitted, it is essential. Indeed, the Founders ensured that petitioning the government was one of the first and most important freedoms protected in our Bill of Rights. Robust debate about judicial decisions has always been part of our democracy, and it should be.
But something fundamental has changed. In recent years, the disinformation and the attempts to politicize the judiciary have transformed rational disagreements about the reasoning in a legal decision into threats of violence against dedicated public servants based on their perceived political persuasion. Hateful and toxic rhetoric has put judges, their families, and judicial independence at risk.
When judges and their families receive death threats for following the law, when courthouse security must be increased because of credible threats of violence, and when judicial staff fear for their safety, this is NOT democracy in action. It is democracy under siege. The difference between criticism and intimidation is not subtle. One strengthens our system by holding it accountable. The other undermines it by making judges choose between their safety and their duty to uphold the law fairly and impartially.
We cannot permit the public to accept the idea that reasonable disagreement and violent intimidation are one and the same. If we do, we don’t just endanger individual judges, we endanger the very idea that the justice system can exist independent of fear and retaliation.
As lawyers, we know that judicial independence is deeply rooted in our nation’s history. The Founders endured King George’s rule, where judges served at the royal pleasure, ruling according to the royal whim. The Founders learned firsthand what happens when courts become tools of those in power rather than guardians of justice.
In crafting our Constitution, they firmly decided our new nation would avoid the perils of a captured judiciary. Judges would “hold their Offices during good behavior,” meaning for life, answerable to no king, no president, and no legislature so long as they exhibited good conduct and carried out their constitutional duties. Their salaries similarly could not be cut to punish unpopular decisions. These guarantees were provided to the judiciary because the Framers understood that judges who fear for their job, their income, or their future cannot deliver impartial justice.
Our judiciary has remained resilient against external pressures. In Marbury v. Madison, Marshall and his fellow justices established that courts have the power — indeed, the duty — to strike down laws that violate our Constitution, even when that means standing alone against the other branches of government.
And in Brown v. Board of Education, where the Court’s ruling triggered massive resistance, violent backlash, and calls to defy the Court’s authority. Judges who enforced Brown faced hostility and threats, yet rendered a decision grounded in constitutional principle — not in public sentiment — that advanced justice in one of the most significant civil rights cases in history.
These moments in American history reveal that when courts are independent, rights can be vindicated, even when the case is unpopular. But when courts bow to outside pressure and threats, rights become privileges, granted or withdrawn depending on who holds power.
The stakes could not be higher than they are now. According to The World Justice Project, 57% of our planet’s population (more than four billion people) live in places where the rule of law is nothing more than an aspiration. They live under governments where those in power act with impunity, where corruption runs rampant, and the courts are nothing more than extensions of political will. For those people, the law isn’t a shield, it is a weapon wielded by the powerful against the powerless.
In an effort to protect judicial independence, I have been part of the leadership team of Speak Up for Justice, a non-partisan, national monthly forum that brings the country together to voice support for the judiciary and educate the public. Our speakers are a cross-section of national and international leaders addressing the need for all of us to speak up, support our justice system, and educate our community. Speak Up for Justice is a judicial independence initiative and not about politics; it’s about principle. It’s about ensuring that future generations receive what we were so fortunate to inherit — a justice system worthy of our trust. The website is speackupforjustice.law/.
In June, Speak Up for Justice hosted judges from Venezuela, Poland, and South Africa who have witnessed the erosion of judicial independence first-hand.
This threat is not confined to a particular region of the world or form of government. In Poland, a Disciplinary Chamber was established within the Supreme Court, with the sole purpose of punishing judges by firing them or cutting their salaries if they failed to comply with political demands. While Polish citizens were protesting and the European Court of Justice had condemned Poland’s actions, Poland became a global example of adverse pressure on judicial independence.
Judge Eleazar Saldivia, a former Venezuelan judge, shared a chilling story about the consequences of a compromised judicial system. While on the bench, Judge Saldivia had refused to reverse a ruling favoring a political prisoner, despite mounting pressure from those in power. Unfortunately, in Venezuela, simply following the law can be the end of a judge’s career and jeopardize the judge’s freedom and safety. Consequently, by choosing justice, Judge Saldivia was forced into exile.
When describing his harrowing experience, Judge Saldivia emphasized that the “[d]ictatorship in Venezuela didn’t arrive with tanks. It came dressed in robes.” Courts still existed; judges still wore the judicial attire; and legal proceedings continued. But justice? Justice had been lost and dissent silenced.
Judge Saldivia’s courage reminds us that judicial independence is not just a professional concern — it’s the difference between living in freedom and living without the protections our Constitution guarantees.
Here at home, we face our own dangers. While threats against judges are nothing new, the current rise in such activity is unprecedented. There has been a more than 400% increase in threats against judges since 2015. As of September 15, 2025, the United States Marshals Service has reported 543 threats made to federal judges and 775 protective investigations. Some judges now fear they will be unable to protect their families.
Social media has also become a weapon of intimidation, amplifying the worst impulses of some and its algorithms allow some users to become fueled by hate. It is being used as a bullhorn, blasting threats and disinformation, taking a toll on the judiciary as well as the rule of law.
Some of our political leaders have attempted to sway courts and undermine public confidence in our legal system. Many of our leaders have advocated for the impeachment of judges because they are unhappy with the judges’ rulings. Just last month, the national Federal Bar Association was successful in persuading a United States Congressman to remove a “WANTED” poster placed outside of his office that listed 18 federal judges who ruled against his desired outcome.
I serve as chair of the Federal Judges Association’s Judicial Independence Committee. In that role, I have had the privilege to work with many organizations involved in responding to unfair attacks on judges as part of our Champions for Justice program. Those organization and individuals have dedicated themselves to dispelling misinformation and educating the public on judicial independence. For example, the American Bar Association, the American Board of Trial Advocates and the International Association of Trial Lawyers each have an established framework and protocols for responding to misinformation and help to educate the public.
Our system of justice should not, and does not, shy away from valid forms of criticism. Litigants and courts alike adhere to appellate review and respect other critiques to improve our practices and rulings. My colleagues throughout the country embrace internal review, self-examination, and external critiques, constantly seeking to improve our system of justice.
However, we must distinguish between criticisms that strengthen our system and attacks that seek to destroy it. Chief Justice John Roberts identified in his 2024 year-end report the four areas of illegitimate activity that pose a danger to judicial independence: (1) violence, (2) intimidation tactics, (3) disinformation, and (4) open threats of defiance. These activities are not critiques; they are assaults on the rule of law itself.
Last week, in our September Speak Up for Justice program, state court judges from across the country shared their unique threats, including one judge who was informed by law enforcement that she should be trained and keep a gun with her at all times; another whose home address was distributed, and another who received a terrifying AI video showing the judge being cut up in pieces with a hatchet and shot repeatedly in the head.
In one of our Speak Up for Justice programs, Rhode Island Chief District Judge John McConnell described how, after one of his rulings, his family became targets. Someone called 911, claiming the judge was killing his wife in their home — a vicious practice called “swatting” designed to send armed police to an innocent family’s door. Judge McConnell’s story is representative of the increasing attacks on the judiciary and the judicial process.
Hundreds of judges across the country, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett and members of her family, have been the victims of what is known as “pizza doxing,” where pizzas are delivered to a judge’s home or his/her family. The intent is to send the message: “we know where you live. We know where your family lives. We can reach you anytime we want.”
Other threats have led to physical violence, including death. In July 2020, U.S. District Judge Esther Salas’s family was attacked in their home by a disgruntled lawyer disguised as a FedEx driver. He intended to kill Judge Salas. Instead, her only child, 20-year old Daniel, answered the door and was shot and killed and Judge Salas’s husband was critically wounded.
In 2022, a Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge, John Roemer, was killed in his home by a man the judge had previously sentenced to prison. That same year, an individual traveled from California to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home in Maryland, intending to murder him. In October 2023, Maryland Judge Andrew Wilkinson was shot and killed in his home by a litigant after the judge ruled against the man in a child custody case.
This is what judges are facing. That is why it is imperative that we recognize these tragedies and understand that these threats come from those who seek to intimidate or harm individual judges for simply fulfilling their constitutional duties. If we, as a society, if we as ordinary citizens, if we as guardians and protectors of the judicial system, do not shed light on the harassment and attacks; if we choose to be silent, the independence of the judiciary will continue to be in danger. So, what can attorneys do? I have three suggestions:
- Respect the Role of the Courts: Even when we disagree with judicial decisions, we must model respect for lawful judgments and teach the public that disagreements with an outcome are not the same as attempts to delegitimize judges or the judiciary.
- Speak up for Judges: You can join organizations that are responding to unfair and unjust criticism of judges and educate the public on the importance of judicial independence. Judges only speak through their opinions; we are not on social media and are unable to defend ourselves or our decisions in the public discourse. Advocates must speak up when the independence of the judiciary is threatened by political pressure or personal attacks.
- Educate the public: A recent survey revealed that 1 in 3 Americans could not name or explain the work of the three branches of government, let alone the central role that judicial independence plays in our legal system. As Chief Justice Roberts has reminded us, “a renewed emphasis on civic education” is “the best antidote for combating the epidemic of misinformation.” We can help bridge the knowledge gap about our institutions by going out and explaining the role of courts, by showing how independence protects everyone, and by reinforcing that the judiciary is accountable through law, not through politics.
You can also join the South Florida FBA chapter’s new program called Nothing but the Truth, which teaches the public about judges and the importance of our rule of law. It is now a national mission program of the Federal Bar Association.
Although many have heeded the call to help educate our fellow Americans, more must be done. That is why I, along with my colleague, Judge Robin Rosenberg, created the Courts and Civility program, an adult-focused program that (1) informs the public about what courts do; and (2) promotes the need for civility and respect for the rule of law. The materials are simple and on the national FBA website. Here is the link.
We are so grateful that this chapter has embraced the Civil Discourse and Difficult Decisions program for students since it was established in 2017. By bringing students to the courtroom and presenting the CD3 program, you have done an incredible job educating and inspiring high school students, college students, and now law students. A shout out to Judge Raag Singhal who, together with Nicole Levy Kushner and Darren Spielman, presented the CD3 program as part of Constitution Day last week. Thank you to those of you who have taken your time and talent to inspire students. Thanks to your leadership, we are looking forward to presenting CD3 to the entire 1L class at the University of Miami School of Law on October 24th.
We face a moment that demands action. I urge all of us, as judges and lawyers, and, most importantly, as citizens, to renew our commitment to defending the independence of the judiciary, maintaining the rule of law, and prioritizing respect among the branches of government and among ourselves.
So please, use your platforms, and your energy to dispel the misinformation and leverage your knowledge to educate. As lawyers, you carry a unique responsibility in this moment. You are each an officer of the court. That means your duty extends beyond the interests of your clients to the integrity of our justice system. Judicial independence is not the judiciary’s responsibility alone — it belongs to all of us.
When lawyers stand silent in the face of encroachment, independence weakens. But when lawyers stand together, as advocates for the rule of law, we strengthen the courts, and through them, the very freedoms we each hold dear.
So, I leave you with this thought: every time you rise in court, you are not only representing a client; you are representing a profession that has been entrusted with defending justice itself. We must all meet this critical moment and ensure that judicial independence remains the bedrock of our constitutional republic for generations to come. Thank you.
Beth Bloom has served as a United States District judge in the Southern District of Florida since 2014.
