If you decide cases for a living, you shouldn’t have to wonder whether someone will show up at your house with a gun. Yet for state judges, that nightmare has become uncomfortably real. Now, Congress might actually be doing something about it.
The Bench Is a Bullseye
Judicial officers and court staff face frequent threats of violence, online and offline. In 2021, at the federal level, over 4,500 threats to judicial staff were recorded — a roughly 400% jump since 2015. The danger doesn’t stop with judges: clerks are harassed and threatened daily, state court facilities receive bomb threats, and state supreme court justices handling controversial cases report rising intimidation attempts.
Those threats aren’t hypothetical. In 2022, a Wisconsin circuit judge was murdered in his home by a defendant in a criminal case he had previously handled. The next year, a Maryland circuit judge was murdered outside his home by a party to a divorce case over which he had presided. Both tragedies involved state trial‑level judges, which is probably no coincidence. State and local judges handle the most personal, volatile cases, from divorces and custody fights to evictions and criminal prosecutions. And unlike federal judges, who are protected by the U.S. Marshals Service, the nearly 30,000 state judges across the country lack not only personal security.
In response, state legislatures have tried to shore up security on their own. Over the last three years, they have introduced a surge of judicial‑security bills, including more than 60 in 21 states in 2024, 10 of which became law by April. Most revolve around one idea: keeping the personal information of court personnel out of the wrong hands.
State Laws to Thwart Doxxing
The scope of protection varies. Delaware’s H.B. 230 narrowly covers specified state judicial officers and their families, while Missouri’s Judicial Privacy Act extends protections to federal judges, prosecutors, and their families. Florida has built outward from judges to cover court staff and personnel of independently elected clerks of court.
States also differ on who must keep information confidential. Nebraska amended existing law to stop county assessors and registers of deeds from releasing certain judicial data. Idaho instead sweeps in every state and local public agency. Some laws broadly bar the release of any records about covered individuals; others target specific items like home addresses, phone numbers, or email addresses.
A newer wave addresses private doxxing. Oklahoma’s Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2023 makes it unlawful for any person, business, or association to publicly post protected information about an at‑risk individual or their immediate family after a removal request. Judges can seek injunctions, fines, and attorneys’ fees, creating a financial deterrent against turning their personal data into a weapon.
Some states have gone beyond privacy rules and started criminalizing conduct that puts judges in danger. Maryland’s Judge Andrew F. Wilkinson Judicial Security Act, named for the judge killed at his home in 2023, makes it a crime to knowingly publish protected personal information when the publisher knows or should know it poses a serious threat, and it results in assault, harassment, trespass, or property damage. Violations can bring up to 18 months in jail, a $5,000 fine, or both.
Other states have focused on physical protection. Maryland created a task force to set minimum courthouse security standards. Tennessee created a new Class E felony for assaulting someone at a courthouse because of their role in judicial proceedings. Virginia now requires minimum protections for magistrates, such as separate entrances, secure barriers, and duress buttons. Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming have targeted more specific risks, from threat assessments to residential picketing to intimidation of judges.
A National Threat Center for State Courts
Even with all these laws at the state level, state judges are still facing threats that cross borders and platforms, with no corresponding national support system. Unlike federal judges, they have no central resource to track threats that cross state lines, standardize incident reporting, or share intelligence with law enforcement in real time.
That’s the gap the Countering Threats and Attacks on Our Judges Act (S. 2379) is meant to fill. The bipartisan legislation was sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R‑Tex.), Sen. Chris Coons (D‑Del.), Rep. Lucy McBath (D‑Ga.), and Rep. Michael McCaul (R‑Tex.).
If passed, the Act would create a State Judicial Threat Intelligence and Resource Center focused on state and local judges, not the already‑protected federal judiciary. The center, housed in the State Justice Institute, would serve as a national hub for security data, training, and technical assistance: helping judges, court staff, and local law enforcement spot and respond to threats, assessing security at courthouses and judges’ homes, and standardizing threat reporting in a national database so courts can finally see where risks are emerging.
How Close Are We to Real Protection?
In the Senate, the bill has already done the hard part: it passed by unanimous consent in November 2025, a rarity for anything involving the courts. Its House counterpart, H.R. 4602, has bipartisan sponsors and is waiting for a vote.
So far, the bill has drawn support from a wide swath of the justice system. The National Center for State Courts’ president, Elizabeth T. Clement, has called it “vital to the security of every state judge in America,” while Maryland Chief Justice Matthew Fader and leaders of the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators, and the National District Attorneys Association have all urged swift passage, stressing that no judge, prosecutor, or court staffer should have to fear for their safety just to do their job.
The American Bar Association has made the bill the centerpiece of its 2026 advocacy, warning that escalating threats are chilling judicial independence and discouraging people from taking the bench. It’s also stressing that courts need both more judges and safer working conditions if they’re going to keep up with their caseloads.
If lawmakers mean what they say about defending the rule of law, that commitment has to include the people in black robes. The real question now is how long they’re willing to leave state judges waiting.
Related Resources
- Concern From Many Judges as Rhetoric Escalates and Threats Keep Increasing (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
- New Ethics Guidance on When Judges Can (and Can’t) Publicly Defend the Rule of Law (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
- Judges Seek Home Security Services Amid Increasing Threats (FindLaw’s Practice of Law)
