Last week, I wrote about the extraordinary dangers facing our judges. Judging by the feedback and readership, that column struck a chord.

Every day, New Jersey judges make decisions that change lives. They sentence criminals, determine the custody of children, resolve bitter disputes and administer justice, often under extraordinary pressure. We ask them to make those decisions without fear or favor. Yet judges and their families face threats, stalking, harassment and even violence simply for doing their jobs.

The murders of Daniel Anderl, the son of federal Judge Esther Salas; retired Wisconsin Judge John Roemer; and Maryland Judge Andrew Wilkinson remind us that these dangers are not hypothetical. New Jersey responded with Daniel’s Law and other judicial security measures. But we can, and should, do more.

The Response So Far

Since that column was published, I have heard from many people who want to see change. Legislators, judges and staff members alike have reached out to ask about next steps.

My partner, Tom Scrivo, who has earned a well-deserved national reputation for defending judges, is now working with the New Jersey State Bar Association, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and members of the federal judiciary to schedule a much-needed and long-overdue symposium on this critically important topic. Stay tuned.

In the meantime, several of my friends in the Legislature, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Brian Stack and Judiciary Committee members Senators Michael Testa, Kristin Corrado and Joseph Lagana, have reached out to discuss legislation. The proposals below are by no means a complete solution, but I believe they represent a meaningful starting point.

Seven Reforms

I urge our Legislature to consider seven meaningful reforms that strengthen existing statutes, rather than simply passing new laws for the sake of passing laws.

1.      The Judicial Threats and Intimidation Act

Amend N.J.S.A. 2C:27-3, which governs threats and improper influence in official matters, and N.J.S.A. 2C:27-5, which addresses retaliation for past official action.

Elevate qualifying threats and retaliation against judges from third- or fourth-degree crimes to second-degree offenses, which carry five to ten years in prison. The Legislature should also consider additional penalties for aggravated conduct involving weapons or credible threats of serious violence.

2.      The Judicial Stalking and Harassment Prevention Act

Amend N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10 (stalking), N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4 (harassment) and N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.1 (cyber-harassment).

Increase penalties for repeated threatening conduct, stalking, surveillance, and coordinated intimidation intended to influence or retaliate against judges. Existing law already makes certain harassment of judges a fourth-degree crime. The Legislature should examine whether more serious conduct warrants second-degree penalties.

3.      The Judicial Family Protection Act

Amend N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3 (terroristic threats), N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1 (assault) and N.J.S.A. 2C:27-3 (improper influence).

Provide enhanced penalties when someone threatens, stalks or attacks a judge’s spouse, children or other qualifying family members in order to influence or retaliate against the judge.

No judicial officer should have to choose between administering justice and protecting his or her family.

4.      The Judicial Civil Remedies and Protective Orders Act

Expand the judicial protective-order provisions enacted through P.L. 2021, c. 327, and strengthen the civil remedies available under applicable law.

Permit expedited protective orders and establish clearly defined remedies for unlawful intimidation, including compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and, where appropriate, punitive damages.

Criminal accountability is essential. Civil accountability provides an additional deterrent.

5.      The Judicial Security and Threat Assessment Act

Establish a statewide judicial threat assessment and response framework, coordinated among the Attorney General, the State Police, county prosecutors, and Judiciary security personnel.

This framework should provide for rapid investigations, emergency security assessments, appropriate information sharing, and annual reporting on threats against judicial officers.

The best protection is stopping a tragedy before it occurs.

6.      Strengthen Daniel’s Law

Amend P.L. 2020, c. 125, including N.J.S.A. 2C:20-31.1 and N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1, which address the unlawful disclosure of protected personal information.

Strengthen enforcement against the intentional exposure of judges’ home addresses and other protected information, expand appropriate safeguards for family members, and improve procedures for removing dangerous online disclosures.

7.      Advance Pending Judicial Protection Legislation

The Legislature should take up Senate Bill S2972 (2026–2027), which proposes enhanced penalties for threatening judges and prosecutors, additional protections for family members, and a new doxxing offense.

Lawmakers should also consider Assembly Bill A2662 (2026–2027), which addresses the harmful publication of judicial officers’ identifying information.

Together, these proposals provide a foundation for comprehensive, bipartisan legislation.

Protecting Judges Without Silencing Critics

None of these reforms should diminish the constitutional right to criticize judges, challenge their decisions or appeal their rulings. Disagreement is democracy. Intimidation is not.

Having served in the New Jersey Legislature, I know that some of our most important laws are those that prevent tragedies rather than merely respond to them.

Judicial protection should not be a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is a matter of public safety and respect for our constitutional system.

Judges wear black robes, not bulletproof vests. They make difficult decisions; they do not compete in popularity contests. And they deserve to return home safely to their families.

We ask our judges to protect the rule of law. It is time we make certain the rule of law protects our judges.