Former Federal Judges Fight Back Against Attacks on the Judiciary
Q&A with Former Federal Judges Robert Cindrich and Paul Michel
Robert Cindrich (left) was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994 to serve as District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania and was confirmed by the Senate. He served for 10 years before becoming Chief Counsel for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. He also served as US Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania from 1978 to 1991.
Paul Michel (right) was appointed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by President Reagan and confirmed by the Senate in 1988. He served as Chief Judge from 2004 to 2010. He simultaneously served on the Judicial Conference of the United States and was appointed to its executive committee by Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Rex VanMiddlesworth: The two of you have been instrumental in the recent creation of the Article III Coalition. Tell us about this coalition and its purpose.
Judge Paul Michel: In a nutshell, it's a group of former federal judges dedicated to trying to preserve the courts’ ability to decide cases under the law and to respond to threats to an independent judiciary as set out in the Constitution. It was created in the spring of 2025 by a group of former judges working with Keep Our Republic, and we officially launched on May 1, 2025.
There are more than 40 judges in the coalition, and they are from across the country. About half were appointed to the federal bench by Republican presidents (Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush), and about half were appointed by Democratic presidents (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama). Despite the diversity of backgrounds of every sort — geography, gender, politics, you name it — the judges are unified in their concern over threats to judicial independence and the rule of law.
Judge Robert Cindrich: Article III of the United States Constitution establishes the federal judiciary as a separate and co-equal branch of the federal government, and it plays an essential role in our system of checks and balances. The judges in the coalition are Article III judges, which means they were appointed by a president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
VanMiddlesworth: What motivated you to create this coalition of former federal judges?
Cindrich: I was witnessing the federal judiciary under attack from various quarters. There were threats of violence against judges and their families, calls for impeachment of judges for issuing decisions that some disagreed with, and claims that other branches of government did not have to comply with court orders. I had a deep concern about the ability of the judiciary to maintain its independence in the face of these attacks. And without an independent judiciary, we cease to be a nation under the rule of law. And in my case, it was simply a question of finding a way to do something constructive to stand up for the judiciary and its role in our constitutional system.
Michel: I was particularly concerned about the increase in threats and intimidation directed at judges, especially federal judges. Judges in the United States are required to decide disputes “without fear or favor.” The favor part means bias or having some personal benefit from ruling in a case, and that's not really a serious problem. What is a serious problem is the fear part, because so many judges have been threatened or attacked in recent years.
Several judges have been killed in retaliation for their rulings. One incident involved an explosive device sent through the mail that killed the judge when he opened the box. And the families of judges are also at risk. In 2020, Judge Esther Salas was targeted by a self-described “men’s rights activist” unhappy with her rulings. She was spared, but her 20-year-old son answered the door and was murdered. In Chicago, an angry plaintiff shot and killed the husband and mother of Judge Joan Lefkow.
So, this is not imaginary or hypothetical. And the inflammatory language that so many are using to attack judges today can only increase the risk.
Sitting judges are very constrained about what they can say publicly, even in their own defense. They are expected to remain above the fray on political or policy issues. They generally cannot speak out publicly to respond to calls for their impeachment, refusals to comply with their orders, inflammatory character attacks, or even physical threats. But as former judges, we are able to speak out on these issues, and that is why we’ve started this coalition — to be a voice in support of sitting judges.
VanMiddlesworth: What do you mean when you refer to judicial independence?
Michel: I think of it as the ability of judges to decide disputes before them, strictly based on the law as it stands and the facts as the record in the proceeding reveals them.
The decision-making is not supposed to involve fear of physical harm or reputational harm or harassment of family members or anything like that. In recent years, we've seen a steady increase in intimidation and castigation of judges, and it's increased still further in recent months.
This situation is of great concern for the future of the country and maintaining our democracy, because without the checks and balances the Founders envisioned, there's no way to prevent unlawful actions by the executive branch or the Congress.
Judges guard the border of legality, and that's what the rule of law is all about. The law is supposed to rule, not any single official or group of officials.
In short, you can either have the rule of a king or a dictator who gets to make every decision and enforce it no matter what, or you can have the rule of law, sometimes referred to as the law of rules. The Constitution and certain statutes limit what even a president can do, and it's the job of the judiciary to referee whether the president or his subordinates have gone beyond what the law permits.
Cindrich: I agree. And I’d like to make clear that we're not saying that judges can't be criticized or that their rulings and opinions can't be criticized.
I was a district court judge, and every time there was an appeal of my decision, someone was claiming that I had made an error. That’s fine, that’s part of the deal. Judicial rulings are properly subject to criticism from the public, from scholars, and even from politicians. What we’re concerned with are threats, intimidation, and interference with the independence of judges. And while court orders may be criticized, they must still be complied with, subject to appeal.
VanMiddlesworth: Criticism of courts and their decisions has long been a part of our public discourse. The Warren Court, for example, faced intense criticism for their civil rights decisions. Where does it cross the line into becoming a threat to the rule of law or judicial independence?
Michel: It crosses the line, of course, when it results in physical attacks on judges, and these kinds of attacks have recently occurred with alarming frequency. This is far beyond the historical criticism of the judicial branch that we have always had.
One other thing that's very different is the world of social media. For simply issuing an order with which certain people disagree, judges are called Marxist or leftist lunatics or rogue judges or accused of engineering a coup against the United States. These claims circulate to millions of people. As a result, any number of unknown, unstable individuals can be incited to threaten judges or their families.
Thus, the source of the threats is different. Who hears the threats is different. And the actions are very different now from 20 or 30 years ago.
Cindrich: I would add that it’s one thing if some member of the public or a disgruntled litigant goes on a tirade about a judge. We've all had that. I even presided over a case where the disgruntled litigant threatened to blow up the courthouse. That is not what we’re talking about.
We're talking about the kind of criticism that comes from people in positions of authority and influence. Which then tends to give their followers license to go on a tirade against judges and maybe attack them. It's the source of the criticism that is very different today.
VanMiddlesworth: How has the judiciary responded to this increase in attacks and threats?
Michel: It appears that judges have been continuing to do their duty, notwithstanding these attacks. Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed challenging executive orders and other actions by the administration. And in many of those lawsuits, judges have issued injunctions, either temporary or permanent.
That’s the mechanism that judges use when something is unlawful. They order it to cease through issuing an injunction. I don't see any evidence at this time that the judges who've had these suits have been shrinking from doing their duty out of fear, because they're issuing injunctions when they find the action unlawful.
Judges aren't cowards, but they're not totally immune to human emotions any more than anyone else. They read the news and watch and listen to programs like the rest of us. And those who fear physical attacks or impeachment if they issue a ruling that is unpopular in certain circles may have a hard time being impartial and faithfully applying the law.
Cindrich: I agree completely. Judges have been performing admirably despite the challenges.
VanMiddlesworth: What can be done to ensure that judges continue to act independently and have their orders respected?
Michel: Part of the solution, frankly, involves political leaders in Congress and in the administration being more temperate in their public comments. Extreme comments and verbal attacks on individual judges can readily incite threats and physical attacks and create an atmosphere of intimidation.
There have been members of Congress who have threatened impeachment of judges, not for any wrongdoing that would provide a constitutional basis for impeachment, but simply because someone in the executive branch or somebody in Congress was not happy with a ruling. That is wrong.
What's happened in the last couple of years, and particularly in the last few months, is a sharp spike in the nastiness of the rhetoric and an implicit suggestion of vigilante justice to get those judges back in line. That's the kind of thing that creates real risk and a whole atmosphere of fear and intimidation.
Congress has to help with adequate funding to protect judges. In fact, judges have asked for increased budget appropriations for security. In addition, judges have educated one another on steps they can take to minimize the risk of serious harm to themselves or their families. Judges who are actively hearing cases nowadays are doing what they can do and they're speaking out to the extent they're allowed.
But as I said, there are strong constraints on how much they can participate in public debates without appearing excessively political or becoming involved in policy disputes.
VanMiddlesworth: Have you seen the effect of attacks on the judiciary in other countries?
Michel: Yes, there are recent analogues in Turkey, Hungary, and elsewhere, where the judiciary has been intimidated. Judges have been threatened and even ousted from office for purely political reasons.
There are many examples throughout history of dictators attacking an independent judiciary. In Henry VI, Shakespeare’s power-hungry tyrants decide that the first thing they must do is to kill all the lawyers, by which they meant the entire judicial system, so that the would-be despots would not be constrained by the rule of law.
So attacks on the judicial branch by those who seek to be above the law have a long history. There's no doubt that when judicial independence is threatened, the credibility of courts goes down and the public loses confidence in the peaceful resolution of legal disputes. Ultimately you can have violence in the streets or authoritarian rule by dictators, which is what has happened in many other countries.
VanMiddlesworth: What is it about the judiciary that makes it such an important bulwark against threats to democracy?
Cindrich: Well, it really goes back to the Magna Carta, which established that the people had certain rights that the monarch could not infringe. That concept has been set out in numerous constitutions since then, including our own. But those rights are not self-executing. There must be a way to ensure that the king or president or legislature honors those rights, and that’s where the courts come in.
The courts see to it that the fundamental rights of citizens to life, liberty, property, speech, and so on are protected. When the legislature or the executive branch violates the rights of the people, it is the judiciary that steps in to secure those rights.
That is the purpose of Article III of the Constitution. That is the purpose of an independent judiciary. If we read the debates among our Founders, including Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison, we will see that they specifically discussed this and decided that if they wanted to avoid the vicissitudes of having a king, they would need some mechanism to require the government to follow the Constitution and laws. That is the role of the courts.
Michel: The Founders carefully articulated and created a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government, and that is reflected in the Constitution.
And it is a key part of that system that the judicial branch has to check any unlawful excess by the Congress or the executive branch. There's a misunderstanding by some that judges are trying to make policy when they find that a challenged government action is unlawful.
That's absolutely not the case. What a judge must decide is whether a particular action violates the commands of the Constitution or of a statute. That's the question — is the challenged action lawful or not lawful? We interpret and apply the law. We don’t legislate.
It's not whether we think it's good policy or not good policy. That's not our job as judges. But unfortunately, many people have been led to believe that judges are making policy decisions that many people don't like, and that therefore judges are somehow out of control.
They're not out of control. They are controlled by the words of the statute, the words of the Constitution, and the precedents interpreting the Constitution. But so long as this misconception remains, the courts will remain under heavy attack. Part of what the Article III Coalition hopes to do is to explain the role of the courts in our constitutional system.
VanMiddlesworth: What do you think is required to preserve judicial independence and the rule of law?
Cindrich: The Article III Coalition has identified a set of principles of judicial independence setting out the conditions necessary for the courts to perform their constitutional responsibilities. They include the following: (1) Congress must provide sufficient resources to the judicial branch for the enforcement of court orders and the protection of the judges, (2) courts and those carrying out judicial functions, such as U.S. Marshals, must be insulated from interference by the executive branch, (3) parties and their lawyers must comply with court orders and not engage in tactics designed to obstruct the judicial process, (4) elected officials should refrain from inflammatory rhetoric aimed at threatening or disparaging individual judges, and (5) no person should be exempt from the reach of a court’s contempt powers or immune from proceedings to enforce court orders.
VanMiddlesworth: What will the Article III Coalition be doing to address these issues?
Cindrich: One of the most important things we will be doing is educating the public on the importance of an independent judiciary and the rule of law. Because it is ultimately up to the American public to demand that judicial rulings be respected and that judges be protected. For that to happen, the public must have a better understanding of the critical role the judiciary plays in our system of government.
Unfortunately, civic education in schools has waned over the years. One of our primary missions is education, through town halls, public outreach, media interviews, podcasts, etc. We'll do those things in the belief that education on the importance of judicial independence and due process will resonate.
We’ll use concrete examples to make clear the importance of the judiciary. For example, suppose the government wants to take your house to build a road over it. Why don't they just take it, as they do in some other countries? Well, they can't, because the Constitution says the government can’t take private property without due process of law and just compensation. It is up to the courts to defend those rights and prevent other branches of government from violating them. And the courts can only do that if they remain independent and their orders are followed.
Michel: Another thing we'll be doing is building support for Congress to provide the funding and legislation necessary for judges to be protected and to feel safe in deciding cases only according to law and not according to fear.
Every year the Congress has to provide funds for the judiciary, for courthouse security, for the marshals, and all the rest. There are other steps that Congress can take to increase the protection afforded to judges and to ensure that courts have the ability to enforce their orders.
We hope that the voices of the retired judges in the Article III Coalition will be heard respectfully by leaders in Congress, because we're not speaking out for ourselves but for current judges, so that they can do their job properly.
VanMiddlesworth: I see that the Article III Coalition is composed of men and women in their 60s, 70s and even 80s. Are there any lessons that you can share about marshalling the experience and knowledge of older Americans to participate in meaningful social-impact work?
Michel: Yes. I think the experience of this coalition is a great example. When we started this effort in the spring, there were only a handful of former judges involved. A few months later, we have 48 former federal judges in the coalition. All of them have made clear that they want to participate actively. They have traveled for town hall meetings, they’ve given numerous interviews on the importance of the judiciary, and they’ve worked to develop position statements and legal analyses on important issues. Virtually all of the Article III Coalition’s work is being done by these volunteer retired judges, with support from the Keep Our Republic organization.
These retired judges are eager and energized, and they are completely united in standing up for the rule of law and the independent judiciary that sustains it. They understand that this is a huge problem that needs immediate attention. I hope and believe that their actions will be impactful.
VanMiddlesworth: What can Americans who aren’t former federal judges do to help the cause of protecting judicial independence and the rule of law?
Michel: Well, they can reach out to Congress. They can speak up about this issue. The Article III Coalition can't do this single-handedly, directly or through media. The citizens of the country need to demonstrate that this is a problem that needs attention. They need to show that they care about the important role an independent judiciary plays in our constitutional system.
Cindrich: Our work is not for us but for the preservation of our constitutional system of government. I would urge others to become engaged, because this is one of the best things you’ll ever do. Spend some time, go to your public meetings, talk to your friends and neighbors, write your representatives and speak up.
And I would say to older Americans, you can retire from your job but never retire from active participation in civic life. Always have something you’re doing that is for the benefit of others. It will energize you and give you purpose.
VanMiddlesworth: Thank you so much for your thoughts.
About the Author:
Rex VanMiddlesworth is a 2023 Harvard Advanced Leadership Initiative (ALI) Fellow and Senior Editor for Democracy, Law, and Human Rights for the Harvard ALI Social Impact Review. He has practiced public law and litigation for over 40 years and is currently Of Counsel to the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers. VanMiddlesworth serves on the national executive board of the pro-democracy organization Keep Our Republic and as co-chair of that organization's Anti-Subversion Election Task Force.
This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.