WASHINGTON, D.C. — A new legal analysis warns that escalating attacks by the Trump administration on the federal judiciary are deepening an institutional conflict between the executive and judicial branches and raising concerns about the safety of judges and the stability of democratic institutions.
In a Verdict article, Lauren Rikleen addresses the dangers of Trump’s recent hostility toward federal courts, describing the president’s escalation in attacks on the court system as unconscionable and arguing that his rhetoric and actions put federal judges in danger.
According to Rikleen, the Supreme Court recently overturned the president’s global tariff policy. In response, “He lashed out at the legitimacy, integrity, and motives of the six Justices who reached the conclusion that most legal experts in the country long expected—the tariffs were an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative powers.”
Trump called the justices on the Supreme Court a “disgrace to the nation,” according to George Chidi with The Guardian. Additionally, he imposed a 10% increase on tariffs in response.
Due to the Trade Act of 1974, “He asserted that he had the authority to impose additional tariffs under existing statutes without congressional approval.” The imposition of increased tariffs is meant to be temporary, and it must not exceed 150 days or 15 percent, given the law’s provisions.
Rikleen also addresses that Trump falsely accused the Supreme Court justices of being heavily swayed by foreign interests. He even referred to his own appointments, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, as “an embarrassment to their families.”
Trump’s use of dangerous rhetoric is not a new tactic for the administration. According to Rikleen, “The president repeatedly uses highly charged language on his Truth Social platform and at rallies to describe judges blocking his policies as ‘radical left judges’ and ‘lunatics’ whose rulings could ‘lead to the destruction’ of the country.’”
Additionally, Trump’s imposition of retaliatory policies has been a common tactic to suppress judges who block his agenda. Rikleen points to District Judge James E. Boasberg, who was called for impeachment by Trump after ruling against some of the tactics used by immigration enforcement officers.
“The Department of Justice, quick to obey the presidential demand, also responded to the call by filing a formal judicial misconduct complaint—one subsequently dismissed by an appellate judge,” according to Rikleen.
Judge Boasberg’s case is not unique, and Rikleen notes that several federal judges have been subject to significant threats for rulings against Trump. For example, Judge Arthur Engoron faces several threats to his life for ordering Trump to pay penalties for his involvement with the insurrection on Jan. 6.
“The average number of threats and hostile communications directed at federal judges, court staff, courthouses, and federal prosecutors has more than tripled in the decade since Trump launched his first presidential campaign in 2015,” Rikleen writes.
This increase in harmful rhetoric creates a political climate of instability between the executive and judicial branches.
Rikleen argues that these threats are not harmless and put federal judges in real danger. In one case, a shooter disguised as a delivery driver shot both the son and husband of Judge Esther Salas.
While Judge Salas was unharmed in the incident, her son was killed and her husband suffered critical injuries.
This new, dangerous climate for federal judges who hold the president accountable completely undermines the independence of the judicial branch, according to Rikleen.
By making federal judges factor threats to their safety into their decision-making, the administration puts pressure on federal judges to rule on cases in a favorable, partisan manner.
Rikleen explains, “This completely undercuts the third branch of government, which is doing far more to protect democracy and the rule of law than the executive branch seeking to undermine these principles or the congressional branch doing nothing.”
She warns that threats to the independence of the judicial branch can lead to the erosion of democracy itself.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
