This is what the New York Times had to say recently on attacks on the Constitution:
The Domino’s pizzas arrived at the homes of federal judges without explanation. The message was clear: We know where you live.
The mysterious pizza deliveries are happening at the same time that President Trump, his aides and their allies have started an intimidation campaign against the legal system — through executive orders, social media posts, public comments and even articles of impeachment. The evident goal is to spread anxiety and fear among judges and keep them from fulfilling their constitutional duty to insist that the Trump administration follow the law. The campaign extends to private-sector lawyers, with Mr. Trump trying to damage the business of several firms he does not like. The scope of these tactics can sometimes get lost amid the pace of news, and we want to pause to connect the dots and explain the seriousness of what’s happening.
The primary targets for intimidation have been federal judges, the latest being Judge James Boasberg. Last weekend, he ruled that the Trump administration could not send 261 migrants to a prison in El Salvador without first holding a hearing. The administration continued deportation flights nonetheless, and its lawyers have since dissembled about the timeline. In response, Mr. Trump described Judge Boasberg, who was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush and elevated by Barack Obama, as a “troublemaker,” “agitator” and “Radical Left Lunatic” who should be impeached. A Republican House member filed articles of impeachment hours later, and Elon Musk announced he had made the maximum campaign contribution to several House members who supported the articles.
The attempts to cow Judge Boasberg continue a pattern. Mr. Trump, in an interview with Fox News this week, said, “We have rogue judges that are destroying our country.” Vice President JD Vance has claimed that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” Mr. Musk has posted dozens of scathing social media messages about judges who have questioned the legality of his government cuts, describing them as evil and corrupt.
Mr. Trump’s allies outside government echo these attacks in even harsher ways. Media allies of Mr. Trump have published biographical details about judges’ children. Federal marshals recently warned judges about an increase in personal threats. After Judge John Coughenour temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, he was the subject of a bomb threat hoax. No wonder that judges feel “mounting alarm over their physical security,” according to interviews by Reuters.
We want to emphasize that criticizing a judge’s decision can be entirely reasonable. Joe Biden, Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush and other presidents inveighed against rulings. The Constitution establishes the judiciary as equal to the executive and legislative branches, not dominant over them. And Republicans are not the only ones who have crossed a line when unhappy with judges. Liberal critics of the Supreme Court have harassed justices at their homes, and in one extreme case, a man unhappy with the court’s approach to abortion planned to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Yet Mr. Trump’s efforts at judicial intimidation are of a different scale. As president, he is encouraging a campaign of menace. In case after case, he argues that the only reasonable result is a victory for his side — and that he alone can determine what is legal and what is not. His allies then try to dehumanize the judges with whom they disagree and make them fear for their safety.
Mr. Trump’s efforts to subdue law firms may seem separate, but they are connected. He has issued three executive orders removing the security clearances of lawyers at three large firms: Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie and Paul, Weiss. In each case, the motivation is political. The firms have employed lawyers who represented Democrats, investigated Mr. Trump and sued Jan. 6 rioters.
These orders are not merely revenge, though. They are attempts to undermine the legal system and freedom of speech. If it becomes onerous for anybody who dares question Mr. Trump to hire a lawyer, fewer people will challenge him. Those who do will find themselves at a severe disadvantage in court. “An informed, independent judiciary presumes an informed, independent bar,” as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a 2001 decision. On March 12, Judge Beryl Howell temporarily blocked part of the order against Perkins Coie, calling it “retaliatory animus” that “sends little chills down my spine.”
The initial response from many law firms has been a disappointing mixture of silence and capitulation. The clearest example is Paul, Weiss. During Mr. Trump’s first term, it helped sue the Trump administration for its separation of migrant children from their parents, and the firm’s chairman, Brad Karp, boasted that the firm fought “to protect the liberties and freedoms of the most vulnerable among us.” In the past few days, he reversed course. He traveled to the White House and agreed that the firm would donate $40 million in legal services to causes Mr. Trump favors. In exchange, Mr. Trump said he would drop the executive order against Paul, Weiss.
More than 600 associates at top firms have signed an open letter that captures the larger dynamic: Mr. Trump is trying to create a chilling effect among law firms. The letter ... criticizes their own firms’ partners for not speaking up. “These tactics only work if the majority does not speak up,” the letter says.
The response from judges has been stronger, despite the threats that they face. During court hearings, they have tried to ascertain the facts of cases and confronted Mr. Trump’s lawyers about their dubious assertions. Chief Justice Roberts, for his part, released an admirable statement the same day that the president called for Judge Boasberg’s impeachment, saying that impeachment was “not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” Even though the chief justice did not name Mr. Trump, the speed and directness of the response were highly unusual. As Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, said, “The courts’ behavior to this point has been spot on.”
Mr. Trump’s testing of America’s legal system has probably only begun, and it will require a more vigilant response in coming months. If he continues to defy court orders, judges may need to begin holding his lawyers and aides in contempt. Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as his Supreme Court colleagues, may have to become bolder about protecting the legal system they oversee. Law firm leaders would do well to summon more patriotism and courage. Members of Congress can do the same by asserting their own constitutional powers.
Mr. Trump, for all his bluster, does sometimes respond to political and legal pressure and pull back in the face of opposition. The more people who come forward to defend the Constitution, the greater their chances of success will be.