This is [music] Bloomberg Law with June

Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

>> And I'm ashamed of certain members of

the court, absolutely ashamed.

>> In an unprecedented turn for a US

president, Donald Trump has criticized

Supreme Court justices who ruled against

him, at times even ridiculing them.

>> They're just being fools and lapdogs for

the rhinos and the radical left

Democrats and not that they should have

anything at all to do with it. They're

very unpatriotic and disloyal to our

constitution.

>> And the acting attorney general, Todd

Blanche, has said the Justice Department

is at war with federal judges.

>> These activist judges that that they

have a robe on,

but they are more political

or certainly as political as the most

liberal governor or DA.

>> And now the Department of Homeland

Security has taken the administration's

attacks on federal judges to a new

level. It's top lawyer has posted a list

of the quote worst of the worst district

court judges. DHS general counsel, James

Percival, listed four judges who ruled

against the administration's immigration

agenda in a post on X. It mirrors the

way the department lists the names of

dangerous immigrants as the worst of the

worst. This as threats against federal

judges have more than tripled over the

past decade. Joining me is Judge Esther

Salas of the US District Court for the

District of New Jersey. Judge Salas,

what was your reaction when you saw this

post by DHS's top lawyer?

>> My reaction was um

a bit of shock because I I have imagined

that a representative like general

counsel of DHS would be

launching something like this that I

think is an attack personally on the

judges and not not on the merits but on

the judge and I think some of the

procedural

information even provided in those ex

post are inaccurate.

And so I worry for those judges and I

worry

what is to come from every judge that

finds him or herself on this weekly you

know, unveiling if you will of of the

new worst of the worst district judge. I

just don't understand what's the end

game. What is the end game

with this type of rhetoric coming out of

DHS? I don't understand it.

>> These judges, the four judges that were

listed were listed because they ruled

against the administration's immigration

agenda.

>> Yeah, you know, I think that it's pretty

clear that they're taking issue with the

judges rulings and instead of appealing

the judges

they're launching this these personal

attacks. I mean, the point of indicating

the president who nominated them. What's

the point of that? And then going on to

in some instances mischaracterize

what the judge did and why the judge did

it. And certainly not attaching links to

the judges opinions or the docket so

that his followers can maybe

judge for themselves. This is I think an

intentional agenda of attacking judges

and it's this negative PR campaign that

I think we've got sadly more instances

of DHS doing this. This isn't the first

time that we see these types of tactics

used to unfairly attack judges. We saw

DHS do this to Judge McElroy and

indicating on a government website that

that judge opposed a national security

threat. And the judge got threatened

after that reckless post on again a

government website. We see it with Judge

Debose in Rhode Island and that was a

judge that there was an intentional act

to keep key information from the judge

in that instance. The judge was not told

about a murder investigation that was

ongoing in another country. And when the

judge released the petitioner, they then

posted how this judge was a Biden

activist judge who let you know, a

potential murderer go. And that this is

played out in Rhode Island. This is fact

what they've done. And the sad fact is

this information about Judge Debose is

still up on the website even though they

now know that you know, they'd had to

apologize for what they did with Judge

Debose. And we see now the sad case and

you know, God rest his soul of a judge

in the Middle District of Florida, Judge

John Steel, who you know, I think made a

ruling based on the law. There was an

opportunity for DHS to appeal the

judge's ruling. They didn't and instead

they labeled him an activist judge, put

his name out there. My understanding, at

least based on the information I'm

looking is that threats began to come in

as a result of this. And you know, we

don't know much so I want to be careful,

but you know, the judge is no longer

with us.

These are intentional acts that I think

are reckless and I think put judges

lives in danger. And I just don't

understand again what is the end game

with this worst of the worst series.

What are we looking to do? Are we

looking to intimidate judges who don't

want to be on the worst of the worst

list because they're going to be now

targets for threats? So, are we working

on intimidating judges? Are we

threatening judges by putting this

information out there and looking for

people to then take matters into their

own hands? What is the end game when we

we do the this type of series in quotes?

>> Yeah, well, a DHS spokesperson said that

the social media thread is nothing more

than a factual review of judicial

decisions and their real-world

consequences. If accurately describing a

judge's rulings is controversial, the

issue isn't the reporting, it's the

rulings themselves. The record speaks

for itself. Facts aren't attacks. So,

they're not backing down.

>> Well, then I encourage your audience to

actually fact-check these ex post

because I can say procedurally

they've been fact-checked on my end. I'm

not going to talk about the merits.

They're open cases, so I can't do that

as a sitting judge. But I can tell you

procedurally

there are inaccuracies. And we can just

look to actual cases now like what

they're they're posting about Judge

Debose. And there is exactly evidence

now that, you know, she wasn't provided

the necessary information. In fact, it

was intentionally kept from her. That's

still up there. And that's not fact

anymore. And why it remains up is beyond

me.

But, you know, what they continue to do

is, I think, directly attacking judges

personally. These are not merit-based

arguments. These are, you know, these

are very personal attacks on these

judges. And, you know, the fact that you

can do it is one thing, but should our

leadership be doing this? That's the

other question I have.

>> Well, it seems to be coming from the

top. If you put it in the context of the

administration attacking the judiciary,

President Trump has repeatedly called

out activist judges, and he tore into

the Supreme Court justices who ruled

against his tariffs, calling them fools

and lapdogs. You have the acting

Attorney General talking about being at

war with the federal judiciary. Is it

sort of an attack on the rule of law?

>> You know, I've been very open and and

honest about my feelings with respect to

the president's comments

on down. And I speak to you today as

Daniel's mom. You know, this is an

incredibly hard month for Mark, my

husband, and I. And we are reminded of

what's at stake here when our political

leaders are recklessly and irresponsibly

using rhetoric to attack judges, what

can happen. In our case, we know that a

lawyer who was unhappy with the way I

was handling his case, what he did six

years ago in ringing my doorbell on a

Sunday afternoon at 5:00 in the

afternoon

and taking the life of my only child.

One shot to the chest. What he he almost

took my husband's life as well that day.

There are a lot of vulnerable people out

there, mentally vulnerable people that

see what our leadership is doing in

really demonizing judges and vilifying

us. And that is what they're doing with

using terms like monsters, hating

America, legal insurrectionists,

rogue, corrupt, judges with agendas,

activist judges. These words fuel people

that perhaps are otherwise unable to

really control themselves.

And I just think it's irresponsible and

inconsistent with the president's own

counsel after the White House

Correspondents Dinner and the issue that

happened there. I think the White House

spokesperson is along with the president

talked about toning down the rhetoric,

talking about toning down, you know, the

rhetoric and, you know, watching for our

vitriol. And yet we see the Department

DHS doing exactly the opposite of what

has been at least encouraged by the

president and his own spokesperson.

>> Please stay with me, Judge Salas.

Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law

Show, I'll continue this conversation

with Federal Judge Esther Salas.

President Trump doesn't appear to be

toning down the rhetoric against judges.

I'm June Grasso and you're listening to

Bloomberg.

The US Marshals Service has reported a

rise in threats against federal judges

to more than 560 last year, but the

administration doesn't appear to be

toning down its rhetoric against judges.

On Wednesday, President Trump went into

another tirade against the Supreme Court

on Truth Social, complaining without any

evidence that the decisions on tariffs

and birthright citizenship had cost the

nation trillions and trillions of

dollars. He also reposted a tweet

critical of Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has

said the Justice Department is at war

with judges. And the top lawyer at the

Department of Homeland Security, James

Percival, has put out a list targeting

federal judges by name in what he calls

the worst of the worst district judge

edition. I've been talking to Federal

Judge Esther Salas of the District Court

of New Jersey. She lost her only child

Daniel 6 years ago when a disgruntled

lawyer posing as a delivery driver

killed him when he opened the door to

their home. After that tragedy, Judge

Salas advocated successfully for

legislation to enhance security for

judges nationwide. You're on there when

Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney

Barrett testified before Congress asking

for additional funds for more security

because of increased threats the

Justices are getting. Justice Kagan

explained how politicians calling out

judges by name crosses a line and is

dangerous. And she said it's designed to

intimidate judges. Do you think that's

what this worst of the worst list is

designed to do?

>> I'm going to say that Chief Justice

Roberts warned all of us in in 2024

about the four illegitimate attacks.

And I think the Chief Justice did a

great job in reminding all of us in that

report about the dangers of these

tactics. We talk about violence. We talk

about intimidation.

We talk about the spreading of

disinformation, which I believe much of

what are on these X posts contain

misinformation and disinformation that

is being churned out to the public, the

American public. And I I also believe

that all of this plays into the eroding

of the public's confidence in the

justice system and I think this is

intentional. I think there is a negative

PR campaign that is being rolled out on

social media, being rolled out on

national news, being rolled out in these

statements that come from the top down

that the justice system is broken, that

the judges are rogue, that the judges

are activists, that the judges are

working against particular agendas and

all of this is aimed at eroding the

public's confidence in the justice

system and you know, as Daniel's mom, I

can't say that this is just, you know,

this is just a collection of perhaps

ill-advised acts. This is a campaign

that is been rolled out and in a way

that I have never seen and I don't think

I've ever seen it in the way that we're

seeing it now with threats of

impeachment, articles of impeachment

being rolled out against judges for

rulings they're making. Instead of

appealing the judges, we're threatening

judges with articles of impeachment.

We're posting these statements that

judges are threats to national security,

that judges are activists, that judges

are rogue, that judges are doing the

unthinkable, that judges are disobeying

SCOTUS and disobeying the seventh

circuit. These are all statements that I

think at best are taken out of context,

at worst are misrepresenting uh the

rulings that judges are making and and I

I am concerned that we're doing damage

and I don't know what the rippling

effects of the damage that's being done

on our democracy and on judges in

general and on on our rule of law. It's

just it's unheard of and and let me just

add one other thing. As Daniel's mom,

this is me, I'm mom talking. You know,

when you call us monsters, when you say

and accuse us of hating America, when

you say that we're legal

insurrectionists, when you say that

we're rogue, when you say that we're

corrupt, when you say that you have a

war on judges, you are villainizing us.

You are demonizing judges. And I think

And I hate to think this, but as

Daniel's mom, someone that's living

every day without her only child on this

earth, that if something were to happen

to one of us, you have in lots of ways

insinuated

that we had it coming.

And that's the irresponsible

behavior that is for me saddening

as someone that has to live every day

without her only child. Daniel's

birthday would have been July 13th. He

would have been 26 years old.

And instead, I talked to him at night

when I pray to him.

And I don't have my son today

because a person who felt like they had

to take matters into their own hands

did. And I think that our political

leaders who speak so recklessly, and

these posts that are, I think,

unprecedented, I think they ought to

think about what is the end game with

this tactic

that they seem to be rolling out very

aggressively.

>> Do you know if the four judges named in

this list have been getting threats

since it was posted?

>> I don't know whether there have been

increased threats now to these judges as

a result of these postings, but, you

know, we definitely have been able to

track the spike in threats to judges. I

mean, I gave you an instance with Judge

McElroy and what DHS posted that led to

threats for that particular judge. I can

tell you that I know for certain that

what they did with Judge Debose in Rhode

Island and what they posted and what

remains on their website as to

inaccurate information with respect to

her honor. That led to threats against

the judge. Yes, we are seeing there is a

corresponding spike when we see, you

know, these types of attacks against

judges for rulings they've made. We see

that. I don't know the extent and I

think that we all need to take a moment

to think about what happened with Judge

Steel, John Steel in the Middle District

of Florida, but we know that as a result

of a ruling he, instead of appealing his

honor, they went ahead and basically

issued, you know, a press release on an

activist judge. And based on the

reporting I'm hearing, his honor did

receive a spike in threats coming into

chambers. He's no longer with us and God

rest his soul. We lost him on, I

believe, July 15th. But this is

stressful and I think what we have to

remember is that judges are human, too.

And when you call our chambers and

threaten to kill us, and when charges

are brought, as one judge told me

recently, that this judge had to go to

court and testify against the person who

had threatened to kill this judge. And

you have to sit in a courtroom and talk

about the threats. When you have to come

into chambers and hear horrific messages

wishing you dead and wishing that you

see your children killed in front of

you, which, you know, I've had to hear

from a colleague of mine who played me

this tape that she received. And when

you have articles of impeachment being

brought against you, this is stressful

for anyone to have to deal with in

addition to having a challenging, you

know, docket and everything else. So, I

think that we have to be mindful of of

what we're doing. How, you know, the

fabric of this country is like

outstretched right now in terms of the

the attacks on the judiciary and on each

other. I mean, it is it is horrific. We

are so divided and we are just so full

of anger. What are the repercussions and

what are the consequences

to this continued rollout of attacks

against the judiciary? I don't know how

other people feel, but as Daniel's mom

on July 29th that I'm sitting for this

interview with you, I'm saying to

myself, you know, is this what we want

for our country? Is this what we want

for each other? Are these the standards

that we want to live by in this country?

And I bet you they're not. But, we have

to get back to holding ourselves to

particular standards and holding our

political leaders to those same

standards. And we've got to get to a

better place. And these postings, even

as I said earlier, can they do them or

should they be doing that? That's the

question.

>> Is the judiciary taking any action

against Percival for posting this list?

Perhaps filing a grievance with the Bar

Association for unethical conduct?

>> I'm not privy to anything. I'm speaking

to you today just as Daniel's mom, just

urging our leadership to act more

responsibly. I mean, take whatever

issues you want to take with respect to

the merits of of a case, take us up on

appeal, you know, criticize the merits.

If we look at these postings, they go

far less to merits and they're personal

attacks. And I just, as someone who's

sort of mourning her son, I I'm doing my

best to warn the American public and our

leadership that there are real

consequences at the back end of all of

this. And I, as Daniel's mom, just hope

that we can all learn to, you know,

disagree in an agreeable way. I I hope

we can get back to, you know, listening

to one another and not making someone an

enemy because they don't see the things

the way you see them.

We have a wonderful system of justice.

It's not broken. And I think that in

America we need to we need to come

together as opposed to try to tear each

other apart. And this is just an example

for me of us acting in a way that

hurts us all.

It's It's just hurts us all. So, I would

love for us to agree to disagree on

things and when necessary appeal us, but

you heard the justices' testimony about

what they've been through. Justice Coney

Barrett received a pizza in my murdered

son's name. I learned about that for the

first time in watching her testimony.

That hit me hard. We heard about

swatting. This is happening to to judges

and justices appointed by Rs and Ds.

This is a problem that we all can agree

is not discriminating. But, until we

agree that we are going to approach

things differently and have respect for

one another, I'm afraid we just give

license to this conduct and it's never

going to get any better unless we all

start to do better with the way we treat

each other. I want to just, you know,

say, Chief Justice Roberts was right.

Tension between the the branches is as

old as the Republic, but what we're

seeing now in these four illegitimate

attacks that he warned us about, this is

far from tension. This is, in some ways,

it is and it feels like war. And we've

got an acting attorney general that

declared war on the judges. And I just

don't think this is healthy for our

nation.

>> Thank you so much, Judge Salas. My

condolences over the loss of your son. I

know this is a difficult time for you.

>> I appreciate that and I hope you know

that Daniel's very much a guiding light

in in my life and and my husband's life.

And I hope that he can be a guiding

light for us to come back to a centered

place, a place of love and light as

opposed to just hate and darkness. And

and right now, we need a lot more love

and light in this world.

>> Thank you so much. I really appreciate

you're talking to me.

>> Thank you very much, too.

>> That's New Jersey federal judge Esther

Salas. And that's it for this edition of

the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember, you

can always get the latest legal news on

our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find

them on Apple podcast, Spotify, and at

www.bloomberg.com/podcast/law.

And remember to tune into the Bloomberg

Law Show every weeknight at 10:00 p.m.

Wall Street time. [music]

I'm June Grasso, and you're listening to

Bloomberg.