Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch Speaks Out Against Threats to Judicial Safety

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has broken his silence on the escalating threats targeting the judiciary, emphasizing that violence is never acceptable in a democratic society. In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, Gorsuch addressed growing security concerns that have plagued the nation’s highest court since the 2022 leak of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.

“We have to be able to hear one another,” Gorsuch stated firmly. “And violence is never the answer.”

His comments come amid heightened security concerns for Supreme Court justices following the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the federal constitutional right to abortion. The leak of that draft opinion sparked unprecedented protests outside justices’ homes and raised serious safety concerns.

Most alarming was the June 8, 2022 assassination attempt targeting Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Nicholas John Roske, a transgender individual from California, traveled to Kavanaugh’s Maryland residence with a firearm, ammunition, and tactical equipment. According to the Department of Justice, authorities discovered a gun, tactical knife, zip ties, duct tape, a hammer, crowbar, and lock-picking tools in Roske’s possession.

Roske, who later called 911 and admitted to having homicidal thoughts, had conducted online searches about how to inflict maximum damage with a knife. He expressed a desire to influence the outcome of the Dobbs decision. Roske was subsequently sentenced to eight years in prison with lifetime supervised release.

While not addressing specific incidents directly, Gorsuch emphasized the critical importance of maintaining civil discourse and institutional boundaries to preserve the Supreme Court’s role and the independence of the federal judiciary.

“There’s a balance between transparency and confidentiality in our work,” Gorsuch explained. “It’s wonderful that people can listen to every word uttered in arguments from the bench today, in real time. At the same time, we also have to be able to talk with one another privately and discuss our views candidly around the conference table.”

The justice expressed concern that breaches of confidentiality—including the high-profile Dobbs leak and more recent disclosures of confidential Supreme Court memos from 2016—risk further eroding public trust in the judiciary at a time when the institution already faces intense scrutiny.

Drawing historical parallels, Gorsuch referenced the Constitutional Convention, noting that “the framers thought it was very important that they lock the doors when they were discussing the Constitution.” He cited James Madison’s belief that without that privacy, “there would have been no Constitution.”

The justice connected these concerns to the broader constitutional principle of judicial independence, arguing that the judiciary’s effectiveness depends on its insulation from political pressure and public backlash.

“Why do we have an independent judiciary?” Gorsuch asked rhetorically. “The framers did not want judges beholden to political forces. They said you have to have independent judges so that when you come to court, no matter how unpopular you are, you’re going to get fair, neutral application of the law.”

Despite the ideological differences that often divide the Court, Gorsuch emphasized there remains a shared respect for the Constitution among the justices—a dynamic he believes is essential in an era of increasing polarization.

“When I sit around the table with my colleagues, and we disagree, the one thing I know is that the person across from me loves this country as much as I do,” he said.

Gorsuch’s comments reflect growing concerns within the federal judiciary about personal safety and institutional integrity. Federal judges nationwide have faced increasing threats in recent years, with the U.S. Marshals Service reporting a significant rise in security incidents involving judicial officers.

Legal experts note that the politicization of the Court has intensified scrutiny of individual justices, making them more visible targets. This trend has prompted calls for enhanced security measures and clearer boundaries regarding protests near justices’ homes.

“We can debate, we can disagree,” Gorsuch concluded. “But we have to be able to do it in a way that respects one another.”