The O’Toole Chronicles: The Black Robe is not a bulletproof vest

There are certain institutions in America that must remain above the fray of political combat, personal vendettas, and public intimidation.

Our judiciary is one of them.

Judges are not supposed to be popular. They are not elected to win applause. They are not supposed to check public opinion polls before rendering decisions. They are charged with something far more important: interpreting the law, administering justice, and protecting the Constitution.

Sometimes their decisions make people happy. Sometimes they make people furious.

That is the nature of the job.

But somewhere along the way, we have allowed the line between disagreement and intimidation to become dangerously blurred.

And the consequences are becoming frightening and fatal.

Consider what happened in New Jersey.

On July 19, 2020, a gunman arrived at the North Brunswick home of United States District Judge Esther Salas.

Her 20-year-old son, Daniel Anderl, answered the door.

Daniel was murdered. His father, Mark Anderl, was seriously wounded.

Judge Salas was the intended target.

A young man with his entire life ahead of him was killed because someone harbored a murderous grievance against a federal judge.

Think about that.

A judicial decision, or even a perceived grievance against a judge, can now place an entire family in the crosshairs.

Daniel Anderl never wore a black robe. He never issued a ruling. He never sentenced anyone. He never presided over a courtroom.

He was simply a son answering his front door.

His murder helped inspire Daniel’s Law in New Jersey and the federal Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, measures intended to make it more difficult for dangerous individuals to obtain the personal information of judges and their families.

But legislation alone cannot eliminate hatred.

And hatred, when combined with obsession, can become deadly.

The numbers should alarm every American.

According to the United States Marshals Service, threats and inappropriate communications directed at federal judges and other protected court personnel have annually numbered in the thousands in recent years.

Federal authorities have investigated threats involving stalking, intimidation, threatening communications, and plots against members of the judiciary.

The numbers are sobering and staggering.

In 2026, according to the United States Marshals Service list, there were 471 threats recorded against federal judges and in those threats, 340 individual judges were identified. Looking back to 2022, the number was 403; in 2023- 630; 2024- 509; and 2025- 562. Again, staggering and disgusting.

These are not simply disgruntled litigants writing angry letters.

Some are individuals willing to travel across state lines, locate private residences, purchase weapons and act upon their grievances.

And federal judges are hardly alone.

Look at what is happening in New Jersey’s own state courts.

The New Jersey Judiciary has reported a disturbing escalation in threats against judges.

In 2018, there were 132 reported threats.

In 2019, that number rose to 199.

In 2020, there were 195.

In 2021, there were 274.

In 2022, there were 326.

In 2023, the number reached 444.

In 2024, it climbed to 531.

And in 2025, the reported figure reached approximately 550.

That is approximately 2,650 reported threats over just eight years.

More importantly, the annual number has increased by more than 300 percent since 2018.

Read those numbers again.

We are not discussing a handful of isolated complaints.

We are witnessing an alarming pattern of hostility directed at the very people entrusted with dispensing justice and protecting the Constitution.

To be clear, these statistics concern reported threats, not 2,650 physical assaults. They do not establish how many judges were physically attacked. But they reveal an unmistakable and troubling security problem.

And behind those numbers are human beings.

Judges with spouses.

Judges with children.

Judges with grandchildren.

Judges who must leave their courtrooms, drive home, attend their children’s sporting events and live in the same communities as everyone else.

The danger is not theoretical.

In Bergen County, Aakash Dalal became the subject of criminal proceedings involving allegations of threats against two New Jersey Superior Court judges.

In Somerset County, a 2020 case involved allegations of threatening communications directed at judges, including disturbing threats of physical mutilation.

These are allegations of threats, not established instances of physical assaults. Nevertheless, they demonstrate that intimidation of the judiciary is not some distant problem confined to Washington or other states.

It has reached our own courthouse doors.

Nationally, the warning signs are even more chilling.

In 2005, federal Judge Joan Lefkow returned to her Chicago home to discover that her husband and mother had been murdered by a disgruntled litigant.

That same year, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rowland Barnes was shot and killed inside an Atlanta courthouse by a defendant who had seized a deputy’s firearm.

In 2022, retired Wisconsin Judge John Roemer was murdered in his home in an attack authorities linked to a former criminal defendant.

In 2023, Maryland Circuit Court Judge Andrew Wilkinson was fatally shot outside his home, shortly after presiding over a contentious divorce proceeding.

Different states. Different circumstances. Different grievances.

The same horrifying result.

The judiciary became the target.

Fortunately, the law provides serious consequences for those who cross the line.

Federal law makes it a crime to threaten, intimidate or retaliate against federal judges and other protected officials.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 115, threatening to assault, kidnap or murder a federal judge with the requisite intent to impede, intimidate, interfere with or retaliate against the judge can result in substantial imprisonment.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1503, corruptly endeavoring to influence, intimidate or impede a federal judicial officer or the administration of justice can constitute obstruction of justice.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1512, certain threats, intimidation and other conduct intended to interfere with testimony, or official proceedings can result in additional federal criminal charges.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, interstate stalking or qualifying electronic harassment that causes the legally specified fear, or substantial emotional distress may be prosecuted federally.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), transmitting a qualifying threat to injure another person through interstate communications can carry a prison sentence of up to five years.

Conspiracies to commit federal offenses can also trigger criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. § 371 or other applicable conspiracy provisions.

And when threats escalate into violence, defendants may face additional charges, including assault, attempted murder or murder, with penalties that can extend to life imprisonment.

New Jersey has its own arsenal of criminal statutes.

Under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3, certain threats to kill or inflict serious harm can constitute terroristic threats. Depending upon the applicable subsection and circumstances, the offense may be graded as a third-degree or second-degree crime.

A third-degree crime generally carries a potential sentence of three to five years in prison. A second-degree crime generally carries five to ten years. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.

Under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10, a pattern of stalking can constitute a criminal offense, with more serious grading under specified aggravating circumstances.

Under N.J.S.A. 2C:27-3, attempts to improperly influence public servants through threats or other prohibited means may constitute criminal coercion.

Under N.J.S.A. 2C:20-31.1, certain unlawful disclosures of personal identifying information can carry criminal consequences when the statute’s requirements are satisfied.

And New Jersey’s conspiracy statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, permits prosecution of qualifying agreements to commit criminal offenses.

Depending upon the facts, someone who physically attacks a judge can face assault, aggravated assault, attempted murder, homicide and weapons charges.

The black robe does not diminish the criminal penalties available to prosecutors.

Nor should it.

Civil remedies matter as well.

A judge or family member subjected to unlawful threats, stalking, violence or invasion of privacy may have civil remedies in addition to criminal protections.

Depending upon the conduct, these can include claims for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy and other recognized civil causes of action.

Compensatory damages may address medical expenses, lost income, emotional distress and other legally recoverable losses.

Punitive damages may be available where the requirements of New Jersey’s Punitive Damages Act are met.

New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law also provides privacy protections for covered persons, including qualifying judges and their family members, and authorizes specified enforcement mechanisms and civil remedies for violations.

And where someone conspires to interfere with federally protected rights, federal civil rights laws, including 42 U.S.C. § 1985, may provide a remedy when all statutory elements are established.

Not every threat creates a federal civil rights claim. Not every insult is actionable. And not every angry communication constitutes a crime.

But where the legal standards are met, criminal punishment and civil accountability should be pursued vigorously.

There is another important distinction we must never forget.

Judges are not immune from criticism.

Nor should they be.

Their opinions can be challenged. Their reasoning can be dissected. Their decisions can be appealed. Their conduct can be scrutinized through lawful judicial disciplinary processes.

That is fundamental to a free society.

The First Amendment protects vigorous criticism of government officials, including judges.

But constitutionally protected criticism is not the same as a true threat, stalking, intimidation, or violence.

In Counterman v. Colorado, the United States Supreme Court held that true-threat prosecutions require proof of at least recklessness concerning the threatening nature of the communication.

The law must protect free expression while recognizing the very real danger of unlawful threats.

We can disagree with a judge without threatening a judge.

We can criticize a ruling without terrorizing a family.

We can demand accountability without demanding blood.

This should not be a complicated concept.

Our responsibility is larger than passing another law.

We need better courthouse security, effective threat assessments, stronger coordination between local, state, and federal law enforcement, and meaningful protections for judges’ personal information.

We must take credible threats seriously before they become violent acts.

We should also recognize that judicial security does not end at the courthouse entrance.

A judge’s home, spouse, children, and personal movements can become vulnerabilities for individuals consumed by revenge.

And we should demand something else from our political leaders.

Restraint.

Words matter.

When public figures casually describe judges as enemies, traitors, or legitimate targets of personal vengeance, they contribute to an atmosphere in which the unstable and the malicious may feel encouraged.

That does not mean vigorous criticism must cease.

It means leaders should understand the difference between challenging a decision and dehumanizing the person who rendered it.

Having served in public life for decades, I understand that criticism comes with the territory.

I have received my share. However, death threats aren’t part of the package. Nor should they be.

Anyone who enters public service should expect disagreement, sometimes heated disagreement.

But there is a profound difference between accepting criticism and accepting threats of violence against yourself or your family.

No public servant should be expected to accept the latter.

And no judge should be forced to choose between fulfilling an oath and protecting loved ones.

Our courts are among the last places where arguments are supposed to be settled through evidence, law, and reason rather than intimidation, muscle or mob pressure.

Once a judge begins considering personal safety before rendering an unpopular decision, the administration of justice itself is endangered.

Once a judge’s family becomes leverage for an angry litigant, the rule of law is under assault.

And once threats become commonplace, we risk treating the unacceptable as ordinary.

That is how institutions begin to erode.

Not always with a dramatic collapse.

Sometimes through a thousand small concessions to fear.

A judge who looks over a shoulder.

A spouse who worries when the doorbell rings.

A child who wonders whether a parent’s profession has made the family a target.

A court that must spend more time preparing for violence than administering justice.

That cannot become the American way.

The black robe represents the rule of law.

It represents the principle that disputes are settled by evidence and legal argument rather than intimidation and violence.

But the black robe is not a bulletproof vest.

And if we cannot protect the men and women who wear it, we will eventually discover that we have failed to protect something far greater than the judges themselves.

We will have failed to protect justice.

And when justice becomes afraid, every American has something to fear.

Final note and I’m sorry about the length of this column. We all must respect and love how Judge Esther Salas has taken the horrible death of her beloved son, Daniel, and converted this tragedy into hope, love, and determination. We look forward to spending October 28th, 2026, with Judge Salas and her husband, Mark, as they focus on the Daniel Anderl Judicial Protection Project, An Evening of Gratitude and Impact. Love is Light. https://www.judicialprotection.org/. The mission is to further the safety, security, and privacy of members of the judicial community and their families. I’m proud to be one of the committee members taking part in this tremendous opportunity.