Gorsuch Warns of Threats to Judges, Calls for Civil Discourse Amid Leaks and Violence

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch condemned rising threats against judges in an interview with Fox News Digital. He broke his silence on violence targeting the judiciary amid security concerns that followed the 2022 leak of the court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

That leak triggered protests outside justices' homes and heightened safety fears, especially after an assassination attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Gorsuch said the environment of heated public discourse and breaches of court confidentiality endangers the institution.

"We have to be able to hear one another," Gorsuch said. "And violence is never the answer."

Federal judges have faced increased security risks in recent years. On June 8, 2022, Nicholas John Roske, a transgender individual from Simi Valley, California, traveled to Kavanaugh's Maryland home with a firearm and ammunition in a checked suitcase.

Authorities found a firearm, tactical knife, zip ties, duct tape, a hammer, crowbar, lock-pick tools and other items in Roske's belongings, according to the Department of Justice. Roske saw deputy U.S. Marshals outside the home, walked away and called 911. He told a dispatcher he had homicidal and suicidal thoughts and had come from California to kill a Supreme Court justice.

Before the incident, Roske searched online for ways to harm people, including "Does twisting or dragging a knife cause more damage." He wanted to affect the Dobbs decision, in which the court overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the federal constitutional right to abortion. Roske received eight years in prison and lifetime supervised release for the attempt.

Gorsuch did not address specific incidents directly. He told Fox News Digital that civil discourse and institutional boundaries remain vital to the Supreme Court's role and the federal judiciary's independence.

"There’s a balance between transparency and confidentiality in our work, right?" Gorsuch said. "I mean, it's wonderful, I think, that we have the opportunity for people to listen in to our own arguments. You 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," he said.

Gorsuch pointed to breaches like the Dobbs leak and 2016 leaks of confidential Supreme Court memos as risks to public trust.

"You think about how robust our system is, where everybody, all factions come into making laws," Gorsuch said. "That makes our decisions wiser than you are ever gonna get in a dictatorship or a monarchy or an oligarchy. They're much more fragile, aren't they?"

He stressed boundaries for internal deliberations, especially after high-profile leaks.

"There’s a balance between transparency on the one hand and confidentiality in our deliberations," he said. "You can read every word I think about a case at the end of the day, but do we need some confidentiality? Of course."

Gorsuch warned that losing balance could harm trust in the court and justices' candid debates, a practice from the nation's founding.

"The framers thought it was very important that they lock the doors when they were discussing the Constitution," Gorsuch said. James Madison later believed there "would have been no Constitution" without that privacy.

Gorsuch linked these issues to judicial independence. "Why do we have an independent judiciary?" he said. "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 differences, Gorsuch said justices share respect for the Constitution amid 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 said public debate tone and rejection of violence will determine if the system lasts.

"We can debate, we can disagree," he said. "But we have to be able to do it in a way that respects one another."