For decades, the only opinions federal judges shared publicly came from the bench. That just changed.
After new guidance from the U.S. Judicial Conference, judges across the country are stepping forward to describe a problem the bench has carried in silence for years. They are being threatened, intimidated, and attacked, and the systems meant to protect them stop at the courthouse door. Personal safety for federal judges has become an unresolved issue in U.S. judicial security.
The numbers are difficult to argue with. The U.S. Marshals Service has already recorded 241 threats against federal judges in 2026, on top of 564 threats in 2025. That number does not reflect a normal year. It is, by the judges’ own descriptions, an unprecedented wave.
The Unprecedented Wave the Bench Is Finally Discussing
For more than a generation, the convention was clear: Judges did not speak about threats. They understood their work carried risk, and silence was treated as professional discipline. That norm is no longer acceptable.
Last month, the U.S. Judicial Conference issued an advisory opinion encouraging federal judges to speak publicly when they are attacked, to combat misinformation and defend the integrity of the judicial system. In a recent public statement, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said personally directed hostility toward judges is dangerous and must stop.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom, who will moderate a panel titled “The Bench Breaks Its Silence,” told ABC7 Chicago that in 32 years on the bench, she has never seen anything like the current level of attacks. Chief Judge Virginia Kendall of the Northern District of Illinois told the same outlet that significant threats were once an anomaly. Now they are a daily occurrence.
Read the full report from ABC7 Chicago: Federal judges speaking out after unprecedented wave of threats, intimidation and attacks.
Why Off-Bench Protection Has Lagged Behind
The institutional gap is not a mystery. Several factors keep it open.
Courthouse-Centric Judicial Security
The U.S. Marshals Service is responsible for federal judicial security, and it does so well within its primary footprint. Courthouses are protected. Public appearances are protected. Travel to and from official duties is protected.
What happens after a judge arrives home is a different scenario. Judge Bloom described it directly: protection at the courthouse and at public events is reliable, but at home, judges are, in her words, often sitting ducks.
A Historical Norm of Silence
When judges did not report or speak about threats, the institutional record stayed thin. Budget cases were hard to make. Protection programs stayed under-resourced. Threats that did not reach a prosecution rarely surfaced at all.
The recent Judicial Conference guidance is the first formal effort to break that pattern.
Threat Normalization
When the volume of recorded threats grows several-fold in a few years, the institutional response often lags the reality on the ground. What used to be flagged as serious becomes routine, and what used to be routine drops below the reporting threshold.
Judge Kendall put it plainly to ABC7: significant threats used to be an anomaly, and now they happen daily.
Family and Home Exposure
Modern threat actors do not need to find a courthouse to find a judge. Home addresses, family member identities, and daily routines are increasingly accessible online.
Judge Esther Salas experienced an attack in 2020 that killed her son at the family home, forcing the federal system to confront residential exposure in a way it had not before. Daniel’s Law, named for Judge Salas’s son, has since been enacted in several states to restrict disclosure of judges’ home addresses. The off-bench protection gap at the residential level, though, remains the primary unresolved issue.
A Jurisdictional Patchwork
Federal judges live across all 50 states. State and local law enforcement carry the practical burden of any rapid response to a home incident. Coordination is uneven, response times vary, and the judge must bridge the gap in the moment.
The Institutional Cost of Inaction
The case for closing this gap is usually framed in personal terms, and it should be. A bench that is afraid is a bench that cannot do its work. The institutional cost is also worth naming directly.
Judicial Independence
The legitimacy of the courts depends on judges being able to make decisions without fear of physical consequences to themselves or their families. Judge Bloom’s framing is precise: if respect for the rule of law erodes, the legitimacy of the courts comes into question, and personal safety is part of that question, not adjacent to it.
Recruitment and Retention
Federal judgeships are appointed for life and historically attract the most accomplished members of the legal profession. If the personal cost of accepting an appointment includes documented threats to a judge’s family at home, the calculus for the next generation of candidates changes. Several sitting judges have raised this concern publicly.
Public Confidence
When judges speak openly about the threats they face, the public sees both the risk and the institutional response. The absence of a credible response is itself a story.
Family Exposure
This cost does not appear on any budget line. Spouses, children, and elderly parents share the home address. They share the threat profile, too.
Why Courthouse Protection Is Not a Personal Safety Plan
Most discussions about judicial security focus on what works at the courthouse — the U.S. Marshals Service screening, the metal detectors, the secured chambers, and the controlled access. All these measures are real and effective within their footprint.
The problem is that the threat does not stay inside the footprint.
A judge at home has no faster way to call for help than the rest of us. Under calm conditions, a phone on a nightstand takes six to eight seconds to unlock, open an app, and signal what is happening. Under threat, with shaking hands and an aggressor in the home, those seconds extend, sometimes indefinitely.
A phone is also visible. Reaching for it can escalate a situation that might otherwise be defused.
A safety plan that depends on a judge calling 911 from a personal phone, at home, in the middle of a crisis, with a family member in the next room, is not a plan. It is what the institution defaults to when nothing better is in place.
How a Panic Button for Judges Closes the Gap
The gap is closable, and in at least one federal district, it is already being closed.
Sources told ABC7 Chicago that judges in the Northern District of Illinois have been issued personal panic buttons. Judge Bloom confirmed that this solution is far from common practice across the federal bench. The Northern District is, in effect, a working pilot inside the federal system. The model is straightforward.
A wearable panic button for judges is a small, discreet device a judge keeps on their person, on a bedside table, or near a primary entry point at home.
One press of the button sends an alert with location information to designated responders, which can include U.S. Marshals task forces, local law enforcement, and a private monitoring center, depending on the program design. There is no app to open, no login to remember, no screen to find in a dark room.
This solution is in the same category as lone-worker panic buttons already deployed across hospitals, government agencies, and field environments where staff are isolated and seconds matter. Deployments of one-touch wearable duress devices in comparable critical environments have shown a roughly 39% reduction in incidents, driven partly by faster response and the deterrent effect of known coverage.
For the judiciary, three things change immediately when a personal safety device is in place:
A judge has a way to call for help in under two seconds. Without taking their eyes off the situation in front of them, without reaching for a visible phone, and without speaking.
Responders know exactly where the judge is. Not somewhere in the district. A specific location. For a workforce that lives and travels across all 50 states, this is the difference between a meaningful response and a search.
The institution has a documented protection program. When a circuit, district, or court administrator is asked what was provided to protect a judge at home, the answer is a specific device, a documented deployment, and a measurable response standard.
What Court Administrators and Judicial Security Leaders Should Be Asking Right Now
If you oversee operations, security, or judicial services for a court, here are the three questions worth pressing on this quarter:
- What actual off-bench protection do our judges have, and how fast can they get help at home?
If the honest answer is “their phone and 911,” that is the gap. The Northern District has a different answer. The rest of the system can have one, too.
- How are we documenting threats, including non-court communications, social media activity, and near-miss incidents at residences?
Without data, the case for funding protection programs is hard to make. With data, it makes itself.
- What is our institutional posture if a judge is attacked at home and we cannot show that we provided a personal safety device?
Run that question past your general counsel and your security planning team before the incident, not after.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are federal judges at higher personal risk than they used to be?
Yes. The U.S. Marshals Service tracks formal threats, and the volume has risen sharply. The service recorded 564 threats against federal judges in 2025 and is on a faster pace in 2026. Judges who have served for decades are publicly describing the current environment as unprecedented.
What is a personal safety device for a federal judge?
A personal safety device is a wearable button that lets a person send an emergency alert with one press. The best versions for off-site use do not require a smartphone, app, or login, and they transmit location data directly to designated responders. They are designed for the moments when a person cannot reach a phone, speak, or afford to be seen calling for help.
Are panic buttons already being deployed for federal judges?
In at least one federal district, yes. ABC7 Chicago reported that judges in the Northern District of Illinois have been issued personal panic buttons. Judge Beth Bloom of Florida’s Southern District has noted that this device is not yet common practice across the federal bench, which is part of what the recent Judicial Conference advisory opinion is intended to address.
Will a panic button work in rural areas with weak cell service?
Modern lone-worker panic button devices are built for inconsistent connectivity. Cellular fallback, multi-network coverage, and offline alert queuing are standard features in devices designed for field environments. Coverage testing in the specific geographies a program will serve is one of the first items in any evaluation.
How quickly can a personal safety program be deployed for the bench?
Programs for high-risk personnel typically reach initial deployment within weeks rather than months. The longer items in a deployment timeline are usually the procurement and approval steps inside the institution, not the technology itself. A pilot with a single district or chamber can be operational within a single budget cycle.
A Better Standard for the Bench Is Within Reach
The judges who are now speaking publicly are not asking for sympathy. They are describing an institutional gap and asking the system to close it. The U.S. Judicial Conference has given them permission to be on the record. The U.S. Marshals Service has the threat data. The Northern District of Illinois has the working precedent.
What is missing in most federal and state systems is the decision to act. A judge at home is not a sitting duck if the institution decides they should not be one. The technology to give a member of the bench a real way to call for help, in seconds, without a phone, in front of an aggressor, exists today. It is in use across courthouses, hospitals, government agencies, and senior living communities. It is currently in use in at least one federal district.
The standard for the bench can be the same.
Ready to Close the Gap?
Ready to give judges, court personnel, and other high-exposure staff a personal safety device that works under actual pressure? Response Technologies builds one-touch, reliable panic button solutions designed for moments when seconds matter. Book a demo to see how a personal safety program for federal judges can be deployed across a district, chamber, or court administration program in weeks, not months.
