Ex-Federal Judges Group to Defend Judicial Independence (1)

A group of 20 former federal judges have formed a coalition to defend the “independence and integrity of the judiciary” as threats against the courts and individual judges mount under the Trump administration.

Members of the Article III Coalition have signed onto a letter made public Thursday in which they “pledge not only to keep our Republic, but to strengthen it. To defend the rule of law. To protect the independence of the judiciary. To kindle and inspire an informed citizenry. And to dedicate ourselves to the unending duty of protecting our sacred democracy.”

The nearly two dozen former circuit and district jurists appointed by Republican and Democratic administrations plan to appear at public forums and town halls across the country, directly engage with the media and public, and make public statements to “defend the constitutional role and independence of the federal judiciary,” according to a release accompanying the letter.

The effort comes amid the administration’s open battle against the judiciary. Courts have blocked some of its actions in the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s second term, including on deportations and efforts to slash the size of the federal government.

Paul Michel, former chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, said in an interview that threats against the judicial system “precede the administration” but the threats have intensified this year, including “growing efforts to intimidate judges or for political figures to interfere or try to interfere in decisions and rulings of judges.”

Trump and his allies have called to impeach judges appointed by both parties who’ve ruled against his policies. Trump’s congressional allies have also introduced legislation to limit district judges’ ability to make nationwide injunctions, and mulled funding cuts for the courts.

Top Trump allies have also amplified criticism of individual federal judges on social media, prompting safety concerns amid rising threats against jurists.

“Those sort of publicly expressed threats can motivate angry people to take direct action against judges and their families,” Michel, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said.

The coalition is in a “perfect position” to advocate on behalf of judicial independence and legitimacy in the public sphere, Michel said, as sitting judges are unlikely to defend themselves because of restraints “in what they’re allowed to talk about outside of writing opinions in their cases.”

The group isn’t likely to lobby congressional lawmakers directly about judicial independence issues, as sitting judges have done to advocate for legislation to add more judgeships to overwhelmed US district courts. Public education will be their main focus, Michel said.

“There are other ways the courts can be threatened with limiting jurisdiction or reducing funding,” Michel said. “But the biggest problem is that many citizens don’t seem to understand that the popularity of judicial rulings is not the point. The point is for judges to follow the law and the facts and not the politics and not popular considerations.”