21 Federal Judges Publicly Condemn Trump’s Attacks on Judiciary, Prompting Calls for Senate Action

In a rare and extraordinary intervention, 21 federal judges have issued coordinated public statements condemning President Trump’s repeated attacks on the judiciary, prompting Senate leaders to schedule an emergency session to debate potential impeachment proceedings. The move, which unfolded late Wednesday amid mounting tensions over executive overreach, marks the first time in modern history that sitting jurists have collectively called for a president’s removal, citing what they describe as a sustained assault on constitutional norms and judicial independence.

The judges, drawn from district and appellate courts across circuits including the Ninth, D.C., and Second, released their declarations through a joint filing with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Spanning appointees from both Republican and Democratic administrations—among them three nominated by Mr. Trump himself—the group accused the president of “deliberate efforts to intimidate and undermine the third branch of government.” Their statements referenced a series of Truth Social posts in which Mr. Trump labeled certain judges “radical left thugs” and “enemies of the people” after rulings blocked administration policies on immigration detention, federal employee terminations, and deportation flights.

“These are not mere disagreements with outcomes,” wrote Judge Miriam Vogel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a George W. Bush appointee, in one of the more pointed missives. “They represent a pattern of threats that erode public confidence in the rule of law and expose jurists to heightened risks of violence.” Vogel and her colleagues pointed to recent incidents, including unsolicited pizza deliveries to judges’ homes—a tactic reminiscent of swatting—and a surge in death threats tracked by the U.S. Marshals Service, which reported a 40 percent increase in protective details for federal judges since January.

The catalyst appears to trace back to mid-November, when the administration expanded expedited removal procedures under the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. More than 225 district judges nationwide have since issued orders in over 700 cases, granting bond hearings or releases to detainees, deeming the policy a violation of due process. In response, Mr. Trump escalated his rhetoric, vowing on Dec. 10 to “impeach these rogue activists” and urging Congress to act. House Republicans, led by figures aligned with the Freedom Caucus, introduced resolutions targeting specific jurists, but those efforts stalled amid warnings from Senate Judiciary Committee members that removal requires a two-thirds supermajority—67 votes—an improbable threshold in a chamber controlled 53-47 by Republicans.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, announced the emergency vote for Thursday evening, framing it as a “referendum on preserving separation of powers.” Democratic leaders, sensing an opportunity to highlight executive excesses, quickly endorsed the session. “This is not about policy disputes,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, said in a floor speech. “It’s about whether one branch can bully another into submission.” Yet prospects for conviction remain dim; only eight federal judges have been removed via impeachment in U.S. history, all for clear misconduct like perjury or bribery, not adverse rulings.

Behind the scenes, interviews with congressional aides and judicial ethics experts reveal a judiciary pushed to its limits. One senior appellate judge, speaking anonymously due to ethical canons barring political commentary, described closed-door discussions among colleagues as “a breaking point.” “We’ve seen criticism before,” the judge said, “but never this volume, this venom, tied to real-world harassment.” The group of 21 reportedly coordinated via secure channels, consulting former Justice Department officials and the Federal Judges Association before going public.

Republicans have scrambled to contain the fallout. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed the judges’ statements as “partisan grandstanding by Obama- and Biden-era holdovers,” noting that several signatories presided over cases involving Trump administration defendants. Allies on Capitol Hill, including Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, cautioned against escalation, arguing that impeaching a president over verbal sparring sets a dangerous precedent. “Appeals courts exist for a reason,” Graham told reporters.

The drama has spilled into public view, with a video compilation of the judges’ statements—narrated excerpts overlaid with courtroom footage—amassing over 5 million views on social media platforms within hours. Hashtags like #JudicialBacklash and #DefendTheBench trended nationwide, drawing polarized reactions. Supporters of the president rallied outside the Supreme Court, waving signs reading “Drain the Judicial Swamp,” while counterprotesters emphasized the apolitical nature of the bench.

Legal scholars offered measured analysis. “Judges speaking out collectively is unprecedented since the Chase impeachment in 1805,” said Pamela Karlan, a Stanford Law professor and former Justice Department official. “It signals a crisis of confidence, but impeachment as a remedy? That’s a bridge too far without concrete high crimes.” Others warned of long-term damage: Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, predicted “a chilling effect on lower courts, where fear of reprisal could skew impartiality.”

As the Senate convenes, the outcome hinges on a handful of moderates. Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both Republicans with histories of bucking party lines, have yet to declare positions. Democrats, unified in opposition to Mr. Trump, need 20 Republican defections for conviction—a tall order given the president’s enduring base support.

Whatever the vote’s result, the episode underscores deepening fractures in America’s institutional framework. For a judiciary long insulated from partisan fray, this public rebuke may redefine boundaries—or invite further retribution. As one anonymous White House official confided, “This isn’t over; it’s just the opening salvo.” In Washington, where precedents are both revered and shattered, the nation watches a historic showdown unfold.