On March 11, approximately 50 judges gathered in Washington for a six-month meeting of the Judicial Council, which oversees the administration of federal courts. This meeting marked the first gathering since President Trump assumed office.
Discussions during the meeting focused on staffing levels, long-term planning, and the increasing threats to judges and their safety, according to attendees.
At one session, Judge Richard J. Sullivan, chairman of the conference’s Judicial Security Committee, raised concerns about potential threats to the safety of judges. He highlighted the authority that the US Marshals Service, overseen by the Justice Department, has in judicial security matters. Given the history of former officials like Mike Pompeo and John Bolton having their security stripped by Trump, Judge Sullivan wondered if federal judges could be the next target.
Judge Sullivan, who was appointed by President George W. Bush and later elevated to appeals judge by Trump, emphasized the importance of trusting the head of judicial security amidst uncertainties about potential threats to the federal bench.
While there is no evidence that Trump is considering revoking judges’ security, Judge Sullivan’s remarks highlighted the unease among judges about the agency responsible for their safety ultimately answering to the President through the Attorney General, without sufficient funding to address rising threats.
In a statement, the Marshall Services affirmed their commitment to following all legal orders from federal courts to ensure the protection of judges, jurors, and witnesses. However, concerns have been raised about the frozen court security funds at a time when threats to federal judges are on the rise.
Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr., in a letter to Congress, expressed disappointment that court security funds remain stagnant despite the escalating threats. The total amount spent has seen minimal increase, despite inflation and higher staff salaries.
The former US S’s responsibilities have expanded to include protecting the Supreme Court’s residence in response to growing threats. Concerns about the oversight of Marshall Services have led some to propose transferring control of the agency to the judiciary for better protection of judges.
As the threats to judges continue to increase, some members of Congress are considering legislation to make judicial security more independent. The former US S’s response to court orders and the potential interference from political branches remain critical issues to address for the safety of judges.
Despite the challenges, efforts to reduce Marshall Services to increase efficiency may impact the agency’s ability to fulfill its crucial mission of protecting judges and upholding court orders.
Source: www.nytimes.com
