Judicial Security

Threats to Judicial Security

Over the course of their career, judges may be called upon to preside over disputes that generate intense, often negative, public sentiment. Throughout history, this sometimes has resulted in intimidation and even violence directed against them. In 1765, an angry mob attacked the home of Massachusetts Chief Judge Thomas Hutchinson over his refusal to denounce the Stamp Act, legislation that required the use of British paper.

Threats against judges in the United States have more than doubled between 2019 and 2024. In Europe, a 2025 survey of judges from 30 nations noted incidents of threats and intimidation in all countries surveyed. The number of judicial officers reporting security threats In Victoria, Australia more than doubled between 2023 and 2024. Seventeen Mexican judges and six clerks have been killed in connection with their work since 2012 and many more have been threatened. Judges may face threats in their courtrooms, homes, and online. In 2025, the Chief Justice of Kenya noted a marked increase in cyberbullying directed at his judicial colleagues.

The nature and source of these threats vary, as do the motivations. Threats may be directed by fanatical or criminal groups. In 2024, the leader of an extremist religious faction posted death threats online against the Chief Justice of Pakistan after the Supreme Court ordered the release of a man accused of blasphemy. Judges who preside over cases involving terrorism and organized crime have been targeted in some countries. An unidentified gunman killed two judges outside Iran’s Supreme Court in January 2025; the judges had presided over a series of national security-related cases. A Brazilian judge assigned multiple organized crime cases was gunned down in 2011 outside of her home in Rio de Janeiro.

In 2025, a U.S. federal judge was the subject of a bomb threat and swatting attack (prank calls to emergency services) after ruling on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship. A crowd stormed and vandalized the Seoul Western District Court in Korea in January 2025 after a judge approved an arrest warrant for President Yoon Suk Yeol who was facing charges of treason. This attack caused extensive damage to the courthouse and led Korea’s Constitutional Court to enhance its security protocols to prevent a similar incident during the appeal. Also in 2025, a French judge ruled that political figure Marie Le Pen was not legally permitted to run in the 2027 presidential election and received death threats after her home address was shared online.

In other cases, litigants are the source of danger. In October 2025, a judge in Albania was killed after a man involved in legal proceedings opened fire during proceedings at the Court of Appeal in Tirana. In July 2020, a lawyer disguised as a delivery driver entered the home of the United States federal judge presiding over his case, killed her son, and critically injured her husband; the judge was not injured. In 2016, a judge in a southwestern Russian republic was killed after issuing a judgment that significantly reduced the gunman’s pension.

Responsibility for Judicial Security

While in some countries, including Albania, Brazil, Ethiopia, Hungary, India, Japan each court is responsible for its security needs, in other countries security oversight is centralized. The executive branch, usually the ministry of justice, may be tasked with providing security for the court system. Italy’s Ministry of Justice coordinates judicial security efforts. In Sweden, the Ministry of Justice and National Courts Administration share this responsibility. The supreme courts of the United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan develop and implement security protocols for the courts. In Australia, Colombia, and Ghana the judiciary’s administrative office is responsible for judicial security. Security for Latvia’s lower courts is overseen by the Office of Court Administration but the State Police manage security for Latvia’s Supreme Court.

In Ukraine, security for the Supreme Court and Anti-Corruption Court is provided by special law enforcement agents while security for the lower courts is the responsibility of the Judicial Security Service, an entity under the supervision of the High Council of Justice. Security for the Supreme Court of the Maldives is managed by the Maldives National Defense Force; the national police provide security for the lower courts. In Bolivia and Bangladesh judicial security is the responsibility of the local police force.

The United States Supreme Court has its own security force. The U.S. Marshals Service, an office within the Department of Justice, implements security for the lower federal courts. Marshals and Court Security Officers guard all federal court facilities and provide in-court security for judges and court staff. Judges and courthouses in California’s state court system are protected by the Judicial Protection Section, a specialized command within the Protective Services Division of the California Highway Patrol. Many state and local courts in the United States have limited funds and, as a result, more modest provisions for judicial security. The increasing prevalence of threats and violence directed against state court judges, including a Maryland judge killed in 2023 and a Kentucky judge killed in 2024, led to proposed federal legislation to create a State Judicial Threat Intelligence and Resource Center, and entity that will be tasked with providing technical assistance and security monitoring for state and local judges and court personnel.

Measures to Protect Judges and the Courts

Countries employ different strategies to protect their judges and courthouses. Wealthy nations are able to implement comprehensive systems such as guards in courtrooms, surveillance technology, and home security systems for judges. Less affluent countries struggle to provide basic safety measures. Political conditions and the strength of the rule of law also impact the scope of judicial security.

The Courthouse

Most countries screen courthouse visitors through metal detectors and/or physical searches; there are usually security guards stationed near the entrance.

Australia, India, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan have security personnel posted inside and outside of courthouses at all times; parking areas are secured by electronic access codes and are monitored by closed circuit cameras. While Latvia has a centralized security system for all courthouses that includes access cards and video surveillance, courthouse security in Japan is tailored to the needs of each court.

Some countries restrict access to areas adjacent to judges’ offices and have protocols to limit judges’ exposure to the public within the courthouse. In Brazil, Ghana, and most U.S. federal courts, judges proceed directly from a secure parking area to their chambers without passing through public spaces. The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court has police officers posted inside and outside of the courthouse; judges are escorted from the courthouse to their cars by security guards. Many of Hungary’s courthouses are older historic buildings; judges cannot proceed to the courtroom and their chambers without passing through public areas, including areas where incarcerated defendants are being moved by guards to courtrooms.

The Courtroom

Security guards are posted in most apex courtrooms around the world. Courtroom security in the lower courts is usually more limited. Most courtrooms in Bolivia, Colombia, the Maldives, and UAE do not have security personnel, but they are equipped with closed circuit cameras. Courtroom security in Malaysia and Uzbekistan includes a guard (sometimes armed), closed circuit cameras, a ban on mobile phones, and duress buttons at the judge’s desk. Bangladesh and Brazil have security guards in most courtrooms. Although many of Ethiopia’s lower courts do not have security personnel posted outside the courthouse, there is a security guard in many courtrooms.

Threats During Court Proceedings

Judiciaries have adopted different protocols to protect judges against potential courtroom threats from defendants accused of violent crimes. For example, in Ghana, defendants in pretrial custody are always accompanied by a security guard. In Albania, Bangladesh, Egypt, Russia, and Uzbekistan, the accused may be placed in a barred cell inside the courtroom. Italy uses a similar measure for defendants deemed extremely dangerous. Other countries, including the United Kingdom and France, may place the accused in a glass enclosed “dock” for criminal trials that present security risks. Some countries, such as Argentina, do not enclose the accused but may use restraints in the courtroom.

Protecting Judges Outside the Courthouse

The level of security provided to judges outside the courthouse varies considerably. The justices of apex courts are more likely to have personal security guards, as is the case in Brazil, India, and the United States Supreme Court. Many countries, including Colombia, the Maldives, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan, provide security guards for judges who have been threatened or are presiding over cases likely to pose a threat to their safety. In Ghana, all judges are entitled to 24-hour home security, however funding lapses impact consistent coverage. Each member of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court is assigned a “close protection officer.” This level of security is not afforded to lower court judges in member states unless a security threat is present. Judges in Argentina and Latvia may request personal security outside the courthouse.

In Australia, judges are assigned security protection if they are presiding over sensitive cases, have been threatened, or upon request. Australian and U.S. federal judges are provided with home security systems. Recently enacted legislation enabled U.S. federal judges to request that their home address, phone number, and other identifying information be removed from the internet.

Cyber Threats

The digital age has ushered in a steady increase in cyber-attacks against judicial officers, threats that are easy to launch and difficult to thwart.

The experience of a judge from the state of Florida in October 2025 offers a vivid example of the damage that can be caused by online harassment. At the conclusion of a trial involving cyberstalking, the defendant turned to the judge and said, “You’re going to see what happens to you now.” Hours later, her email inbox was clogged with over 10,000 messages. By the next day, that number exponentially increased and she received fraud alerts on her credit card accounts. In the United States, federal authorities documented nearly 27,000 threatening or harassing online communications targeting court officials between 2015 and 2022. State courts report a similar pattern: Wisconsin’s court system recorded 142 threats against judges in a single year, while Arizona’s Maricopa County logged over 400 threats or harassing incidents aimed at judges, staff, and courts between 2020 and 2023.

Cyber-threats are also directed at courts themselves, with hacks to case filing systems or internal software that provide the backbone of court information technology and often contain sensitive or classified information. Chile’s court system was hit by an extensive ransomware attack in 2022.

In August 2025, the U.S. federal judiciary reported a sweeping hack of its electronic case filing system. Courts in India also have experienced cyber-attacks; virtual hearings in the Mumbai National Company Law Tribunal were suspended in January 2025 after hackers interrupted proceedings by broadcasting pornographic content. International tribunals are also vulnerable to cyber-attacks: the International Criminal Court was targeted in June 2025, the European Court of Human Rights in 2023, and the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2015.