Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
Among the many angles on the unfolding court battles over the recent Executive Order on refugees and visas, here is a story someone should really be looking into: How have President Trump’s comments about federal judges changed the threat landscape for those who serve on the federal bench?
If you are finding Lawfare useful in these times, please consider making a contribution to support what we do.
The Executive Order has little relationship to actual security threats. National security experts across the political spectrum are clear that the order will not, and cannot, make us any safer. Ironically, however, President Trump’s reaction to the fallout over the ban creates a far more immediate security risk; his ill-advised Twitter habit threatens the security of U.S. federal judges. And I would be surprised if the U.S. Marshal Service, a federal agency dedicated in part to judicial security, is not mobilizing in response.
The Marshals, the country’s oldest federal law enforcement agency, is kind of like the Secret Service for judges. It is probably safe to assume the Marshals are now busy at determining the risk to the safety of Judge James Robart and his colleagues at the district and appellate level who are required to weigh in on the legality of the Administration’s order.
As readers are no doubt aware, last week Judge Robart in Washington state issued a nationwide injunction against enforcing the Executive Order. The Ninth Circuit has rejected the government’s request for an emergency stay and will consider arguments this week.
Here is how President Trump responded:
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017