Retired Judges Issue Fiery Declaration: ‘Assaults on Our Judiciary’ Threaten Democracy
Over 100 retired California judges unleashed a powerful rebuke against escalating attacks on the judiciary, declaring them a direct assault on American democracy. In a timely Constitution Day statement, they vowed to defend the courts’ independence amid rising political pressures and personal threats.
The Declaration: A Call to Arms for Judicial Integrity
On September 17, 2025—Constitution Day—100 retired judges from across California released the “Declaration of Judicial Independence.” Drafted by a core group of former jurists, the document quickly amassed signatories statewide, signaling widespread alarm within the legal community.
“When in the course of current events, it becomes necessary to respond to unjust public criticism that threatens a fair and impartial judiciary, and to the increasingly dangerous and personal attacks on individual judges, we reaffirm our sworn commitments that compel this Declaration,” the statement begins, echoing the nation’s founding document.
The judges decry “assaults on our judiciary” as assaults on democracy itself, underscoring that an impartial bench is vital to the rule of law. They pledge to speak out against such threats, even in retirement, as their oath to the Constitution endures.
This comes amid a national surge in judicial harassment, with threats against federal judges tripling since 2019.
Background: A Judiciary Under Siege
California’s courts have faced intensified scrutiny in recent years, from political rhetoric to legislative efforts curbing judicial powers. The Brennan Center for Justice reports six states, including California neighbors, enacted laws in 2024 weakening court independence, such as politicizing judicial ethics commissions.
Federally, President Trump’s second term has amplified tensions. His administration’s nominees and criticisms—labeling judges “radical left lunatics”—have fueled threats, including bomb scares and doxxing via unwanted pizza deliveries to judges’ homes. Reuters documented families of 11 judges targeted after rulings against Trump policies.
The declaration draws from these trends, citing “unjust public criticism” and “personal attacks” that erode public trust. Retired judges, free from recusal pressures, position themselves as guardians against this erosion.
Voices from the Bench: Expert and Public Reactions
Signatories include prominent retirees like former California Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin and appellate stalwarts, who emphasize the judiciary’s role as a check on executive overreach. “These assaults undermine the very foundation of our government,” one anonymous signer told the Davis Vanguard.
Broader legal experts echo the concerns. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned in May 2025 of “relentless attacks” risking the Constitution. The American Bar Association advocates for enhanced protections, citing physical threats and politicized impeachments.
On X, reactions poured in. Law.com’s post on the declaration garnered shares from legal pros, with users like @GlugoverLaw amplifying it as a “wake-up call.” Critics from conservative circles dismissed it as “partisan whining,” while progressives hailed it as a bulwark against authoritarianism. The Recorder’s coverage sparked debates on judicial reform.
In Wisconsin, 138 retired judges filed an amicus brief in May 2025 blasting the indictment of Judge Hannah Dugan as an “egregious overreach,” fearing it chills judicial independence.
Impacts on American Justice and Society
For U.S. citizens, these warnings hit close to home. A weakened judiciary means slower resolutions in civil rights, environmental, and criminal cases, potentially delaying justice in everyday disputes like family law or consumer protections. In California, with its massive caseload, eroded trust could exacerbate backlogs, costing taxpayers millions in inefficiencies.
Politically, it fuels divides: Trump’s judicial picks aim to reshape courts conservatively, but threats risk alienating even Republican-appointed judges from retiring, stalling his agenda. Economically, business litigants rely on impartial rulings; assaults could deter investment in litigious states.
On lifestyle, rising threats heighten security costs for judges—passed to the public—and foster a culture of fear, undermining faith in fair trials.
Conclusion: Rallying for the Rule of Law
The retired judges’ declaration stands as a clarion call against assaults on the judiciary, reaffirming its role as democracy’s cornerstone. With threats mounting, their unified voice may galvanize reforms like better protections and anti-harassment laws.
As midterm elections loom, this could spark broader action to safeguard courts. For now, it reminds Americans: An independent judiciary isn’t optional—it’s essential to justice for all.