5d ago

US federal judges consider creating own armed security force as threats mount

www.theguardian.com

Federal judges are discussing a proposal that would shift the armed security personnel responsible for their safety away from the Department of Justice (DoJ) and under their own control, as fears mount that the Trump administration is failing to protect them from a rising tide of hostility.

Under the current system, federal judges are protected by the US marshals service, which is managed by the justice department. According to Wall Street Journal, those participating at the March conference expressed worries that Trump might instruct the marshals to withdraw security protection from a judge who ruled against him.

Amid those anxieties, the idea surfaced that federal judges should form their own armed security force. That would involve bringing the US marshals service under the direct control of the head of the judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts.

politics @lemmy.world

just_another_person @lemmy.world

6d ago

US federal judges consider creating own armed security force as threats mount

www.theguardian.com /us-news/2025/may/25/federal-judges-armed-security-doj-trump-attacks

23 comments

Yes. Good. Do this. Then also deputize them to arrest fuckwads who are in extreme contempt of court, and are rampantly violating court orders.
- Like Trump
- they can’t, under a provision in the “Big Beautiful Bill”
  
  That would need to be affirmed by the courts to matter.
  If the rule of law still matters, here is the process:
  Judiciary does a thing
  Someone harmed by it (i.e. someone with standing, possibly the trump admin) files a suit
  Court agrees with the plaintiff
  Appeals court declines to hear or agrees with plaintiff
  SCOTUS does the same
  Now, the plaintiff can also appeal, and they get an injunction by showing immediate and irreparable harm. But generally, the actions can continue while the appeal is pending.

Do I smell a civil war?
- I mean I don’t NOT smell one.

the Trump administration is ~~failing to protect them from~~ intentionally subjecting them to a rising tide of hostility.
Fixed it for them. The original statement was akin to saying that the locust swarm is failing to protect the crops from being eaten.

🙄 Almost there, little article.
The United States Marshalls protect US assets. Judges are treated as such. But! John Roberts already has a security force called the Marshalls of the Supreme Court. Guess who has authority to deputize Marshalls of the Court?
Yes, a judge. They have constitutional authority to enforce judgements. The real question is why haven't they exercised it.
- that's because the US Marshals fall under the executive branch and guess who controls that

[...] fears mount that the Trump administration is failing to protect them from a rising tide of hostility.
It's not a failure to protect. They're not failing at their goals right now. Their goals just no longer align with your goals of [checks notes] living. Maybe you shouldn't have handed over your power so freely, you fucking cowards.

I'm reading this as "Do you want the coup now or by the actual army when things have really gone to shit and people really are eating dogs and cats to stay alive?"

Posse time?

Firstly, they have one already, they have US Marshalls, who are responsible for enforcing the orders of the judiciary, though they are organizationally under the AG/DoJ.
Secondly, I do not look forward to the 500k deputized (aka ask them if they have a gun) Texas super-Rangers they send to other states to enforce crazy ass Texas laws like life in prison for an abortion, if the man says you conceived in Texas,, or just wants the kid.
- though they are organizationally under the AG/DoJ.
  This is exactly the problem the judges are looking to solve.
  
  That's an administrative detail, the judiciary can ask for the Marshalls to be assigned directly to them.
- At present, marshals fall under the remit of Pam Bondi, the US attorney general. Bondi was appointed by the president and is a Trump loyalist.
  The article was pretty clear on why having the marshals/DoJ in charge would be a problem.
  
  I'm saying the Marshalls are this body, they should be reassigned directly to the judiciary.

23 comments