An Independent Judiciary is Non-Negotiable:

healingjudges
May 4
2 min read

We have adhered to both written and unwritten rules to maintain a civil society, responsible governance, a check on autocracy, and a means to resolve our differences. Throughout our lives, even those driven by hubris and arrogance have acknowledged these rules and behaved within the bounds of decency and respect.

An autocrat's first move is to dismantle the rule of law and demean those who enforce it, so their followers will not legitimize one of the few mechanisms that can restrain unchecked power. Having traveled across this country and spoken with judges from various political backgrounds, I have observed that the disrespect occurring in courtrooms echoes the rhetoric we hear on a national scale.

Refusing to accept accountability and lying about the intentions of those who check power abuses have permeated trial courts. Shame on those who behave in this way and shame on those who ignore the erosion of the rule of law.

This is a statement by several judicial organizations in support of the bedrock concept of judicial independence:

Joint Statement from Judicial Organizations in Support of the Independence of the Judiciary We, the undersigned judicial organizations, stand united in full support of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.’s recent reaffirmation of a foundational principle of our democracy: judges must be free to decide cases according to the law and the Constitution, without fear of political reprisal or threats of impeachment. This fundamental tenet, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 78, and in other founding documents, has underpinned our democratic system for nearly 250 years. Efforts to intimidate judges or subject them to removal for rendering decisions—whether popular or not—undermine the integrity of the judiciary and the rule of law. The independence of the judiciary is not a partisan value; it is a constitutional imperative of justice. Our democracy depends on a system of checks and balances, with each branch of government playing an essential role. Threats and acts of violence directed at judges and their families are unacceptable. No judge should fear for their safety because they are doing their job. Such threats strike not only at individuals but against the rule of law itself. We endorse and adopt the Chief Justice’s statement and urge all public officials to uphold the separation of powers, defend the independence of our courts, and ensure that judges can fulfill their duties without fear, coercion, or harm. Appellate Judges Education Institute (AJEI)

Academy of Court-Appointed Neutrals (ACAN)

Berkeley Judicial Institute (BJI)

Federal Judges Association (FJA)

Federal Magistrate Judges Association (FMJA)

Hispanic National Bar Association

Judicial Division International Association of LGBTQ+ Judges

International Association of Women Judges (IAWJ)

National Asian Pacific American Judicial Council (NAPAJC)

National Association for Presiding Judges and Court Executive Officers (NAPCO)

National Association of Women Judges (NAWJ)

National Consortium on Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts (NCREFC)

Paul Grimm, U.S. District Judge (Ret.), Professor of the Practice of Law and Director, Bolch Judicial Institute, Duke Law School