Trust in the justice system, faith in the lawyers and judges who toil in that system, and even confidence in jurors has begun to erode. It is certainly acceptable to disagree with a ruling or a verdict, or even question whether the judge was fully prepared. However, old lines of propriety are being trampled and new dangerous lines are being drawn. When an unfavorable ruling occurs, it now seems acceptable to spout, without any basis, that the judge was “on the take” or “corrupt,” or even to question the integrity of a jury. Even more troubling is the fact that some members of the public seem to be listening to and accepting this distorted rhetoric.

In recent years, there has been an alarming surge in threats against public officials. During Congressional testimony in February, officials with the U.S. Marshal Service, which is tasked with protecting more than 2,700 federal judges, said threats against that group have more than doubled in the past three years. Data from the Marshals Service also shows the annual average number of threats against federal court personnel was 1,180 incidents in the decade prior to 2015 and 3,810 in the nearly 10 years since then, Reuters reports.

The increases have come at a time when overall public trust in government institutions has waned. According to a report released by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania in June, the percentage of Americans who expressed either “a great deal” or a “fair amount” of trust in the judicial branch has fallen dramatically, from 75% in 2000 to under 50% in 2022.

In just the past few weeks, a Kentucky judge was killed by the county sheriff who oversaw courtroom security; a bomb went off at a courthouse in California, injuring five people, in what the FBI has said was an attempt to kill a judge, and an Alaska man was arrested for allegedly threatening to kill the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. Many will also recall a story from early this year of a man who lunged across the bench at a judge who sentenced him to prison, which made the national news. Also recently, an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer detailed increasing security concerns at Philadelphia’s Family Court, placing both judges and litigants in danger. That article highlighted the fact that judges are not the only victims of the increased violence that surrounds our judicial system. In fact, last year, former Philadelphia Bar Association Chancellor Gaetan Alfano was attacked by a litigant who was involved in a case he was handling.

While our system of justice is not perfect, the due process offered to litigants is second to none. I recently asked the chief judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Mitch Goldberg, how increased threats against the judiciary are affecting him and his colleagues. He responded: “The current atmosphere, where threats against judges are on the rise, is always in the back your mind. This is not a comfortable place to be. Threats and violence against judges’ families have been particularly concerning. We recently had a very violent pro se litigant place the assigned judge’s name and home address on the internet. Unfortunately, some outstanding lawyers who may aspire to be judges, have shied away from pursuing that goal as they don’t want to place themselves or their families in harm’s way.”

Preserving respect for the rule of law is core to the Philadelphia Bar Association’s mission, so we have made this initiative a focal point of our work. That’s why we advocated for the passage of Pennsylvania House Bill 1700, which expands the definition of “public safety official” requiring protection to include “federal judicial officers,” with a definition of that term. The legislation was signed by Gov. Josh Shapiro on Oct. 16 and takes effect in December.

But we are realistic enough to know that one piece of legislation will not solve this problem. Judicial security is a multipronged issue: it is related to cybersecurity, the ease of finding information about individuals online, gun control, mental health, and our increasingly fractured political environment, to name just a few. In Pennsylvania, it’s complicated by the fact that state judges are also elected officials, and some of their information is public record by law.

In Philadelphia and statewide, it’s crucial that we continue to have productive conversations about what it will take to provide better protection in our federal, state and local courthouses for litigants, attorneys, and members of the judiciary. As an organization that represents legal professionals and judges from Philadelphia and the surrounding community, we are hoping to convene a group of stakeholders to talk more about the problem and possible creative solutions for addressing its various aspects.

An independent judiciary is crucial to a functioning justice system. For judges to remain independent in their decision-making, they must be able to do their work free from fear.

Jen Coatsworth is 2024 Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association. She is a partner with Margolis Edelstein.