Somebody
claiming
to
be
a
neighbor
called
the
Fairfax
County
non-emergency
line
just
after
9
p.m.
Wednesday
to
report
gunshots
at
a
home
belonging
to
Justice
Amy
Coney
Barrett.
Officers
coordinated
with
the
Supreme
Court
Police
already
stationed
at
the
residence,
figured
out
within
minutes
that
the
report
was
fake,
and
—
per
the
department’s
own
statement
—
didn’t
even
have
to
send
extra
units.
It’s
being
characterized
as
a
swatting
attempt,
the
practice
of
tricking
armed
cops
into
storming
someone’s
house
where
something
can
go
catastrophically
wrong.
Threats
against
Supreme
Court
justices
garner
more
attention,
but
incidents
of
violent
intimidation
directed
at
federal
judges
are
up
across
the
country
without
much
fanfare.
Balls
and
Strikes
tallied
241
threats
against
202
judges
in
2026
alone,
and
that
story
came
out
in
March.
Supreme
Court
justices
have
access
to
heightened
security
—
like
the
officers
already
stationed
at
Justice
Barrett’s
house
—
but
lower
court
judges
aren’t
as
fortunate.
That’s
not
to
downplay
the
seriousness
of
this
specific
incident,
but
it
should
frame
how
we
talk
about
it.
In
January,
conservative
judges
were
mocking
the
rise
in
threats
and
harassment
against
fellow
judges.
Judge
James
Ho
blasted
the
Federal
Judges
Association
for
having
“politicized”
security
for
judges.
“Today,
they’re
fearful
when
a
judge
receives
an
unsolicited
pizza
delivery
at
home,”
he
said,
glibly
ignoring
that
these
orders
communicate
we
know
where
you
live
and
are
being
made
in
the
name
of
Judge
Esther
Salas’s
murdered
son.
And
the
intimidation
tactics
go
beyond
the
macabre
pizza
deliveries.
Judge
Ana
Reyes
described
being
called
a
“foreign-born
lesbian”
who
should
“eat
a
bullet”
after
an
immigration
ruling.
At
an
event
last
fall,
Judge
Paul
Grimm
quoted
a
threat
made
against
a
different
federal
judge
“We
are
going
to
rape
your
daughter
in
front
of
you,
cut
her
head
off
so
the
blood
splatters
on
you,
then
rape
you,
and
kill
you.”
As
Judge
Grimm
explained,
these
threats
are
flooding
in
whether
judges
were
appointed
by
Democrats
or
Republicans.
Though,
between
the
lines,
it
seemed
that
the
quality
connecting
that
bipartisan
collection
of
judges
was
ruling
against
Donald
Trump.
It’s
hard
to
deal
with
political
violence
—
from
any
ideology
—
when
one
side
treats
it
as
a
joke.
Judge
Ho’s
mockery
fits
a
broader
pattern.
Paul
Pelosi
was
nearly
beaten
to
death
with
a
hammer
in
his
own
home,
and
the
response
from
right-wing
social
media
was
to
turn
his
skull
fracture
into
a
punchline
and
a
conspiracy
theory.
When
a
gunman
impersonating
a
police
officer
assassinated
Minnesota
House
Speaker
Emerita
Melissa
Hortman
and
her
husband
and
shot
State
Senator
John
Hoffman
and
his
wife,
Senator
and
former
Supreme
Court
clerk
Mike
Lee’s
contribution
—
before
the
suspect
was
even
in
custody
—
was
to
post
the
shooter’s
photo
captioned
“This
is
what
happens
When
Marxists
don’t
get
their
way”
and
“Nightmare
on
Waltz
Street,”
because
he’s
too
lazy
to
even
correctly
spell
Tim
Walz’s
last
name.
The
suspect
turned
out
to
be
a
Trump-rally-attending
registered
Republican,
but
Lee
didn’t
seem
interested
in
correcting
the
record.
He
just
deleted
the
posts
and
moved
on.
An
attempted
swatting
is
horrific,
but
if
the
same
people
snickering
about
Pelosi
and
the
murders
in
Minnesota
cast
a
threat
against
a
justice
with
round-the-clock
security
as
somehow
more
grave,
it
speaks
to
a
more
fundamental
breakdown
that
prevents
any
serious
response
to
the
core
problem.
For
the
record,
I
suspect
at
least
one
conservative
voice
will
find
a
way
to
turn
this
incident
into
a
reason
to
build
a
White
House
ballroom.
The
media
plays
a
role
in
enabling
this
cynicism.
The
NBC
report
on
this
story
is
13
paragraphs
long.
The
unprecedented
wave
of
threats
facing
lower
court
judges
over
the
past
couple
years
is
relegated
to
paragraph
12.
Obviously,
mainstream
reporters
feel
compelled
to
clear
their
whos,
whats,
wheres,
and
whens
first.
But
with
more
people
getting
their
news
from
social
media
blurbs
and
circulating
headlines
without
ever
bothering
to
read
the
underlying
story,
a
penultimate
paragraph
mention
may
as
well
not
even
exist.
If
this
story
becomes
“crazy
leftists
target
conservative
justice”
as
opposed
to
“judges
face
increasing
threats
across
America
and
deserve
more
security,”
then
nothing
changes.
Indeed,
elevating
this
story
to
suggest
the
Supreme
Court
is
uniquely
under
siege
gets
the
threat
profile
exactly
backwards.
While
the
Supreme
Court
enjoys
deservedly
heightened
security,
the
majority
has
put
targets
on
the
lower
courts.
The
Roberts
Court
has
spent
the
last
year
using
the
shadow
docket
to
vacate
district
court
orders
without
explanation,
reprimand
trial
judges
for
failing
to
read
the
supermajority’s
mind,
and
broadcast
to
the
administration
and
its
online
auxiliaries
that
the
judges
enforcing
the
law
are
the
real
problem.
Dozens
of
federal
judges
told
the
New
York
Times
the
emergency
docket
was
eroding
public
trust
in
their
work,
and
most
agreed
that
it
had
caused
real
harm.
When
the
highest
court
in
the
country
keeps
signaling
—
without
bothering
to
write
an
opinion
—
that
the
trial
bench
is
an
illegitimate
obstacle
to
the
president,
it’s
not
a
surprise
that
the
same
people
who
stormed
the
Capitol
would
start
issuing
violent
threats.
Roberts
says
personally
directed
hostility
toward
judges
is
“dangerous”
and
“has
got
to
stop.”
That’s
true,
but
his
proposed
solution
is
“stop
questioning
us”
as
opposed
to
pumping
the
breaks
on
churning
out
rulings
baselessly
suggesting
that
lower
court
judges
are
arbitrarily
undermining
Trump.
Part
of
recognizing
political
violence
as
a
problem
beyond
ideology
is
being
honest
about
the
partisan
disconnect
in
the
response
to
it.
When
conservatives
keep
reacting
to
violence
by
laughing
at
the
murder
of
Democrats
and
constructing
flimsy
conspiracies
to
sell
books
blaming
liberals
and
downplaying
right-wing
violence,
it
not
only
engenders
more
right-wing
violence,
but
opens
the
door
to
previously
more
rare
left-inspired
violence
as
they
internalize
the
insane
idea
that
it’s
a
tactic
that
the
other
side
gets
to
use
without
repercussions.
You
know,
like
when
people
storm
the
Capitol
and
try
to
kill
the
police
and
get
pardons.
That’s
the
sort
of
thing
that
normalizes
all
political
violence.
Hopefully,
this
event
results
in
real
change.
But
it
probably
won’t.
We’ll
be
treated
to
a
bunch
of
takes
about
how
this
is
all
a
liberal’s
fault
and
then
if
it
comes
out
that
this
was
one
of
the
legions
of
disgruntled
MAGA-heads
who
think
Justice
Barrett
is
a
RINO
for
ruling
against
Trump’s
tariffs
—
or
an
embarrassment
to
her
family
as
Trump
himself
said
—
it
will
be
quietly
shunted
aside
as
inconvenient.
Earlier:
Judge
With
Overinflated
View
Of
His
Intelligence
Blasts
Judges
For
‘Overinflated
View
Of
Their
Intelligence’
Legalweek’s
Annual
Judicial
Panel:
A
Clear
And
Present
Danger
To
Our
Judges
—
And
The
Rule
Of
Law
‘I’ll
Put
A
Bullet
In
Your
Head’:
The
Disturbing
Reality
Of
Being
A
Judge
In
America
Jonathan
Turley’s
Swatting
Theory
Fizzled
So
He
Launched
His
Own
Phony
Assault
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.