A recent exchange involving Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, has stirred significant unrest among former federal judges. During a fireside chat hosted by the Federalist Society, Blanche boldly declared that the ongoing legal battles of President Trump’s second term represent a “war” against “activist judges.” Such language has drawn sharp criticism, with many judges labeling the remarks as inflammatory and dangerous.
The group of former judges, which includes members appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, expresses concern over the implications of Blanche’s comments. They argue that incendiary rhetoric from high-ranking officials can endanger individual judges and erode public trust in the judiciary as a fair and impartial entity. One judge articulated a deep sense of alarm, remarking that Blanche’s stance marks a considerable shift from the tone traditionally held by the Justice Department. He noted that he has not witnessed such divisive language throughout his extensive career in D.C.
Paul R. Michel, the former chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, spoke candidly about the chilling effect that such rhetoric could have on the judiciary’s integrity. He asserted that it is “startling” for a deputy attorney general to act as a “PR ‘hatchet man'” instead of fulfilling the role of a law enforcement official. This description suggests not just a breakdown in decorum but a fundamental shift in how government officials relate to the legal frameworks meant to guide their actions.
Judge Michel and others emphasized that in times of disagreement over judicial decisions, both the Justice Department and opposing parties have clear mechanisms to navigate disputes. They can appeal decisions through established channels, a process designed to allow the legal system to function smoothly. Philip Pro, a former U.S. District Judge, reinforced this point, explaining that judges operate within a framework that emphasizes judicial restraint and reaction rather than activism. His characterization that “there is nothing ‘rogue’ about these decisions” highlights a core principle of judicial responsibility — to interpret and apply the law rather than impose political will.
The debate surrounding judicial activism is not new. Presidents dating back decades have voiced frustrations over judicial rulings that obstruct their policy priorities. Nonetheless, Blanche’s framing of current judicial disputes as a war raises questions about the implications of such a narrative. Josh Blackman, a law professor who attended the event, touched on the struggle between the executive and judicial branches but offered a more tempered perspective, stating that he does not view Blanche’s comments as a call for violence. Instead, he sees them as an acknowledgment of a broader conflict inherent in the power dynamics between these branches of government.
Some former judges take particular issue with the label of “rogue judges” applied to those whose rulings run counter to administration interests. Allyson K. Duncan, a former judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, asserted that such language reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the judiciary’s role. The judiciary is designed to hold all branches accountable and uphold the law impartially, regardless of political pressures.
There is significant concern for current judges, as threats and harassment against judicial officials have risen alarmingly, with reports confirming an increased number of threats this year compared to previous years. The consequences of this hostile environment are daunting. Judges are facing online abuse, doxxing, and even threats of physical violence, underscoring the need for careful consideration in the language used by public officials. The ongoing dialogue about judicial independence must remain respectful and focused to preserve the integrity of the legal system.
In response to the backlash, the Justice Department defended Blanche’s remarks as a reflection of ongoing challenges posed by what they term “activist judges.” A spokesperson highlighted the department’s commitment to uphold constitutional rights while contending against rulings perceived as detrimental to public safety or undermining the will of the American people.
This incident has opened up an important conversation about the boundaries of political discourse within the realm of justice. The tensions between the branches of government and their respective roles require careful navigation, particularly in a climate where the public is already skeptical of institutional authority. The judiciary’s ability to operate impartially hinges on both the language employed by government officials and the public’s perception of that authority.
"*" indicates required fields
