Federal judges across the country are being targeted with late-night pizza deliveries they never ordered—a chilling tactic that signals to them and their families that their home addresses are known. Since 2025, nearly 200 such incidents have been recorded, according to a new report from the Berkeley Judicial Institute and the Rule of Law Lab at NYU School of Law. The deliveries have hit judges appointed by presidents from both parties, but the perpetrators remain unidentified and unpunished.
The study, which included interviews with 34 sitting federal judges, found that at least 20 pizzas were ordered in the name of Daniel Anderl, the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, who was murdered in 2020 by a disgruntled lawyer. Judge Salas called the deliveries “a veiled threat, warning the judge that they could end up like me or my son.” Federal law explicitly prohibits such threats, yet Salas noted that those responsible “remain at large,” and the study found no public record of any arrest or prosecution.
Targeting Judges Who Ruled Against the Administration
Many of the judges who received pizzas had recently issued rulings against the Trump administration. U.S. District Judge John McConnell was the first to report receiving a pizza in Anderl’s name after such a ruling. In March 2025, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett also received one after joining an opinion opposed by the administration, and her family members in South Carolina were targeted around the same time. Other judges were hit simply for speaking out about attacks on the judiciary. Judge Robert Lasnik and his two adult children, living in different cities, each received pizzas after Lasnik criticized judicial threats on television. Another judge reported that he and his fellow panelists, scattered across several states, received pizzas the same evening he spoke on a panel about judicial security.
The coordinated nature of these deliveries has raised serious concerns. As one judge put it, “With all the pizza deliveries that are occurring all over the country, how is it that we don’t have an answer to date about who is behind these threats?” The U.S. Marshals Service, the agency responsible for protecting federal judges, appears ill-equipped to handle such investigations. The study notes that the agency has fewer than 3,900 deputies to protect roughly 2,500 to 2,700 judges nationwide. The Marshals Service’s own director has requested 1,000 additional deputies, but Congress has not funded them.
Judge Richard Sullivan, who chairs the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Judicial Security, told the researchers that the Marshals Service is dedicated but underfunded and understaffed. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reported that “security incidents of significant concern” rose 57 percent in fiscal 2025 and are on pace to rise again this year. Despite this, no one has been held accountable for the pizza campaign, even though the orders are placed through commercial outlets with records and delivery logs.
Broader Threats and a Personal Toll
The pizza deliveries are just one part of a broader wave of intimidation. Judge McConnell also received at least six credible death threats, and his daughter’s personal information was posted online. Judge John Coughenour was “swatted”—police showed up at his home with guns drawn after a false report that he had murdered his wife. These incidents raise a fundamental question: Are threats against federal judges being adequately investigated and prosecuted?
The personal toll on judges is real and often underreported. One judge described spending 45 minutes weighing whether to abandon a legally sound ruling to protect his family. He ultimately didn’t, but he said he was “traumatized.” Another judge with nearly two decades on the bench now wonders, “Is this the day I’m going to get shot at? … I do feel like we are sitting ducks.”
Judges are now reluctant to answer their doors for unexpected deliveries and have removed office numbers from court websites, making it harder for unrepresented litigants to reach them. Several worry that the constant threats will drive judges off the bench and deter talented lawyers from seeking judicial appointments. As one judge said, “We’re all still doing our jobs, without fear or favor,” but the strain is evident.
The persistence of coordinated attacks on the judiciary without visible consequences poses a grave threat to the constitutional order. Congress should provide the Marshals Service with the resources it needs, and the Department of Justice should prioritize investigating threats against federal judges. As the study’s authors—retired Judge Jeremy Fogel and NYU professor Amrit Singh—argue, these threats deserve real investigation and prosecution where warranted. The lack of accountability sends a dangerous message that targeting judges carries no cost.
