Measures to combat harassment and threats towards Supreme Court justices, state and federal judges, and their families need to be improved. Despite the recent passing of legal acts such as the Supreme Court Police Parity Act and the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, laws in and of themselves will not serve to wholly diminish harassment, threats, or attacks.
In addition to legislation, Congress must also adequately support the US Marshals Service via funding, in order to ensure sufficient resources are available to extend protection to the federal judiciary. Correspondingly, measures must be taken at the state level to augment security for state judges, who are not covered by these federal laws.
A significant portion of the American public remains uninformed about the judicial system due, in part, to insufficient civic and US history education in elementary and secondary schools, coupled with the widespread dissemination of inaccurate news about courts and judges via social media. These factors combine to paint an imbalanced and erroneous picture of judges’ work.
Should public confidence in the judicial system increase, it is likely that judges may face fewer security threats. While there is no ‘magic bullet’ solution, various steps can be taken to help rebuild public trust.
First, there is an urgent need to improve civics education. There are numerous organizations that offer excellent resources explaining the workings of our judicial system. Such materials should be introduced more widely in educational settings, in a meaningful way that encourages students to engage in a positive manner with the court system.
Another major issue plaguing the judicial system is accessibility. Many US citizens find access to dispute resolution via our courts unattainable. This point is illustrated by the World Justice Project’s 2023 Rule of Law Index, which ranked the US at a lowly 115th out of 142 countries in relation to the accessibility and affordability of civil justice. Incorporating emerging technology, such as artificial intelligence, has the potential to make legal assistance more available to the public.
In fact, some states have adopted innovative approaches to enhance legal aid provision. Utah, for instance, has established ‘regulatory sandboxes’ supervised by the court system to ensure access to a comprehensive, quality-assured, and competitively priced market for legal services in various domains. Such programs could be expanded nationwide to enhance public access to the courts.
Maintaining high behavioral standards in courts and embracing modernization could also play an important part in boosting the public’s perception of fairness in the judicial system. Practices such as treating all attendants with courtesy and professionalism, updating court websites, managing backlogs, and ensuring respectful interactions could all contribute to this goal.
However, enhancing public confidence also requires addressing issues of perceived bias or unethical behaviors among judges. The Supreme Court’s voluntary adoption of a detailed code of conduct in November was a meaningful first step towards bolstering faith in the integrity of the judicial system.
In conclusion, judicial security and public trust in the judiciary are inextricably linked. To reverse declining public confidence and increase protection for judges, the relevant stakeholders, including legislators, lawyers, judges, and the courts, all need to take concerted and persistent action.
This article is written by Paul Grimm, a professor of law and director of the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School, and a former district judge of the US District Court for the District of Maryland. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher.