Opposing intimidation is an obviously worthy position. Most Americans would likely agree that people should not frighten, threaten, or strongarm judges. This stance would also go hand-in-hand with Roberts’ warnings about violence, since many forms of intimidation rely on threats of physical harm, whether they be explicit or implicit. The problem is that Roberts has a much broader definition of “intimidation” than its plain, everyday usage.
Roberts also correctly warned about threats to defy court rulings. He noted that the judiciary’s power has not been seriously challenged since the civil-rights era. “Within the past few years, however, elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings,” he wrote. “These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected.” Hopefully President-elect Donald Trump, who has mixed views on judicial independence at best, takes these comments to heart.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrapped up 2024 by once again issuing his annual year-end report. Though often brief and dry, it is often notable because it is one of the only times that he speaks ex cathedra outside the court’s usual work. Roberts rarely writes concurring or dissenting opinions compared to his colleagues; he has written a solo dissent from an 8-1 decision just once in his nearly two decades on the court; he rarely gives interviews or lectures on anything newsworthy.
Public officials, too, regrettably have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges—for example, suggesting political bias in the judge’s adverse rulings without a credible basis for such allegations. Within the past year we also have seen the need for state and federal bar associations to come to the defense of a federal district judge whose decisions in a high-profile case prompted an elected official to call for her impeachment.
Another problem is that the court itself has occasionally been the source of distortions. The justices have taken up multiple cases in recent years where conservative litigants used phantasmal or factually disputed grounds to achieve favorable rulings. A high school football coach in Washington state persuaded the justices to shift the balance on school prayer based on factually disputed grounds, as the court’s liberals pointedly noted in dissent. He coached a single game after getting his job back and then resigned.
While civic education is never a bad idea, it is also insufficient to the task at hand. It is beyond Roberts’s power to personally address the deeper legitimacy issues facing the high court. He cannot stop Thomas or Alito from hanging out with right-wing billionaires, or block his five conservative colleagues from issuing rulings that further undermine the court’s credibility, or reverse decisions like Citizens United that sent our political system into decline. Conflating the court’s critics with genuine threats to judicial independence will not reduce the criticism that the judiciary receives nor the danger that it faces.
This passage is a fascinating window into Roberts’s perception of the court and its place in public life. The first portion appears to refer to Senate Democrats’ sustained criticism of some of the high court’s members—particularly Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—for their alleged ethical lapses. The latter portion appears to be a reference to a federal judge in Louisiana who oversees the New Orleans Police Department; Governor Jeff Landry called for her impeachment in March.
The chief justice accurately noted that “attempts to intimidate need not physically harm judges to threaten judicial independence,” citing instances where federal judges in the mid-twentieth century were harassed for their civil-rights rulings. He also cited incidents where judges were doxxed, where protesters gathered outside their homes, and even alluded to an incident where an armed man threatened to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh outside his home last year.
Neither of these episodes amounts to intimidation. It is worrying that the chief justice of the United States would define them as such. The Supreme Court wields more power over American lives than any other institution in this country—more than the presidency, Congress, the Federal Reserve, the College Football Playoff Committee, or anything else. Criticism of the courts can be misguided and inaccurate. But criticism alone never amounts to intimidation, even when it comes from members of Congress.
Beyond those areas of common concern, however, things got murky. Roberts also argued that “disinformation” is a threat to judicial independence. He pointed specifically to targeted cyberattacks and malign social-media campaigns as particular problems, which are a familiar and vexing issue throughout all corners of government and society at large. But he again adopted a much broader version of the term than is commonly used.
This year’s theme was judicial independence and the peril it faces. Roberts’s choice of topic is timely. Public approval of the Supreme Court has declined precipitously since he joined it two decades ago this year, with fewer than half of Americans expressing support in a Pew Research Center survey last year. An alarming Gallup survey from December found that only 35 percent of Americans have confidence in the nation’s courts in general. Gallup researchers noted that they had rarely seen such a sharp, sustained decline outside of collapsing autocracies.
