Threat Against Judge Federal Defense Lawyers: What You Need to Know When Facing Federal Charges

If your being investigated or charged with threatening a federal judge, your life just changed. Dramatically. The fear you’re feeling right now? Its completely justified. Federal prosecution for judicial threats is one of the most serious criminal matters you can face – were talking potential terrorism charges, decades in federal prison, and prosecutors who are under immense pressure to make examples of defendants in 2025.

But here’s the thing – and this is crucial – not all threatening speech is criminal. The First Amendment still exists, even in federal court. Context matters. Intent matters enormously. And having the right federal defense attorney can be the diffrence between conviction and vindication. Between prison and freedom.

More then 400 threats against federal judges have been recorded in just the first eight months of 2025. The environment is tense. Judges are scared. Prosecutors are aggressive. But that also means courts are seeing a wider spectrum of conduct – from genuine violent threats to obvious political hyperbole that never should of been charged. Your case sits somewhere on that spectrum, and an experienced federal defense attorney knows exactly how to position it.

Understanding Federal Judicial Threat Charges: What Your Actually Facing

Federal law makes it a crime to threaten federal officials, including judges, under 18 U.S.C. § 115. But the statute isn’t as straightforward as prosecutors sometimes make it sound during investigations. Their trying to scare you into making statements or taking plea deals before you understand the actual elements they need to prove.

The “True Threat” Legal Standard – Your Primary Defense

Here’s what most people don’t understand when they first get contacted by the FBI: prosecutors must prove you made a “true threat” – not just offensive speech, not just angry rhetoric, not even genuinely nasty comments about a judge. The Supreme Court has held that true threats require proof that you intended to communicate a serious expression of intent to harm. Not political commentary. Not venting. Not hyperbole.

The distinction seems subtle, but its enormous. You can say a judge is corrupt. You can call for there removal. You can say they deserve to be impeached, disbarred, or publicly shamed. All of that is protected political speech, no matter how angry or caustic. What you cannot do is communicate a genuine threat of violence with the intent to intimidate or cause fear.

And here’s were context becomes your best defense: Where you made the statement matters. Who the audience was matters. The language you used – conditional versus direct – matters. Your history and pattern of speech matters. A single statement made during a heated online political discussion is different then repeated, escalating threats sent directly to a judge’s chambers.

What Actually Constitutes a Federal Threat Charge

Under 18 U.S.C. § 115, prosecutors must prove these elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

• You made a threat (oral, written, or electronic)
• The threat was against a federal official or their family
• You made the threat because of that official’s performance of their duties
• You intended to threaten (not just vent or engage in protected speech)

Notice what’s missing from that list: they don’t have to prove you actually intended to carry out the threat. They don’t have to prove the judge was actually afraid. They don’t have to show you had the capability to harm anyone. The charge is about the communication itself – but only if it meets the “true threat” standard.

This is were experienced federal defense lawyers focus their energy. Each element is a battleground. Did you really intend to threaten, or where you engaged in political advocacy? Was the statement actually “because of” the judge’s official duties, or was it personal criticism? Did you communicate the statement in a way that could reasonably be percieved as a threat by the recipient?

Federal vs State Charges: Why Federal is Dramatically More Serious

If you’ve had any experience with state criminal charges, forget everything you know. Federal court is a different beast entirely. The consequences are harsher, the procedures are more complex, and the prosecutors have nearly unlimited resources.

Federal sentencing guidelines include specific enhancements for threats against judicial officials. Base offense levels start higher than comparable state charges. And federal judges – particularly in 2025, when there facing unprecedented threats themselves – are less sympathetic to defendants in these cases then they might be in other federal prosecutions.

State-level harassment or menacing charges might result in probation or short jail sentences. Federal judicial threat charges under § 115 carry up to 10 years in federal prison. And if prosecutors add terrorism enhancements – which they’re doing more frequently in 2025 – your looking at potential sentence increases of 50% or more under the sentencing guidelines.

The Rising Threat Environment and Prosecution Trends

You need to understand the enviroment your case exists in. Federal judges received more than 400 documented threats between January and August 2025 alone. That’s a staggering increase from previous years, driven by political polarization, social media amplification, and high-profile cases that generate public outrage.

This trend creates both risk and opportunity for defendants. The risk? Prosecutors and judges are under immense pressure to “send messages” and deter future threats. The opportunity? Courts are seeing so many cases that they’re developing more nuanced understanding of the spectrum between genuine threats and protected speech. Your attorney should be tracking recent case outcomes in your specific federal district to understand local prosecution patterns.

Chicago federal courts have seen a particular uptick in threats against judges handling high-profile cases. The Northern District of Illinois, Southern District of New York, and D.C. District are all hotspots where judges have personally experienced threat environments – which can effect their perspective on defendants.

Your Constitutional Rights and First Amendment Protections

Lets be absolutely clear about something prosecutors sometimes gloss over when their investigating these cases: the First Amendment didn’t disappear just because your being investigated for threatening speech. Political speech – even vehement, caustic, unpleasant political speech – enjoys robust constitutional protection.

What Speech Is Protected (And What Crosses the Line)

You can criticize federal judges. Harshly. You can question their integrity, their competence, there intelligence, and their fitness for office. You can call for their impeachment, removal, or resignation. You can organize political opposition to their confirmation or reappointment. You can publish op-eds excoriating their decisions. None of that is criminal.

The Supreme Court has recognized that “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks” on public officials are part of our democratic tradition. Federal judges, as public officials making decisions that effect millions of lives, are subject to intense public scrutiny and criticism.

So where’s the line? It’s when speech crosses from criticism into threat. When it moves from “Judge Smith is corrupt and should be removed from office” to “Someone should kill Judge Smith” or “I’m going to show up at Judge Smith’s house.” Context is everything here.

Political Advocacy vs Personal Threats

Here’s a distinction that sophisticated federal defense attorneys understand but prosecutors sometimes ignore: there’s a difference between advocating for political consequences (even extreme ones) and making personal threats of violence.

Saying “This judge deserves to be hanged for treason” in the context of a political discussion about perceived judicial overreach is different from saying “I’m going to hang this judge.” The first is hyperbolic political rhetoric – the kind of exaggerated language that’s been part of American political discourse since the founding. The second is potentially a true threat.

Your defense attorney should be documenting the full context of any statements you made. Was this during a political debate? Was the language clearly rhetorical or metaphorical? Did you use conditional phrasing (“someone should”) versus direct threats (“I will”)? Were you responding to others’ provocations? All of this matters enormously.

Social Media and the Context Problem

One of the biggest issues in modern threat prosecutions is how social media strips away context. Federal investigators reviewing your tweets or Facebook posts often take individual statements out of the broader conversation thread. They ignore sarcasm indicators, satirical account markers, or the fact that you where responding to someone else’s inflammatory comment.

A statement that reads as threatening when isolated might be clearly rhetorical when viewed in full context. Was your account known for satire? Were you participating in a thread where others were using similar hyperbolic language? Did the actual audience – the people who saw your post – interpret it as a serious threat, or did they understand it as venting?

Experienced federal defenders immediately retain social media forensic experts who can reconstruct the full digital context: timestamp analysis (was this posted during a news event that provides context?), account history, audience understanding, and platform norms. What’s considered normal rhetoric on one platform or in one community might be percieved differently when presented to a jury without that context.

Immediate Steps If Your Investigated or Charged

If the FBI has contacted you, if you’ve received a grand jury subpoena, or if you’ve been arrested for threatening a federal judge – stop reading and call a federal defense attorney. Right now. Before you do anything else. But since your probably gonna finish this section anyway (because your scared and looking for information), here’s what you need to know.

Do NOT Speak to Federal Investigators Without Counsel

This is the single most important thing I can tell you, and I cannot stress it enough: do not speak to FBI agents or federal prosecutors without an attorney present. Not even “just to clear things up.” Not even “to explain the context.” Not even if they say “it’ll look better if you cooperate.”

Every word you say will be analyzed for evidence of intent. Explanations that seem helpful to you often become evidence of consciousness of guilt. “I didn’t mean it” can be twisted into an admission that you made the statement. “I was just angry” can be used to show emotional instability and potential for violence.

Federal agents are trained investigators. Their good at their jobs. They’re not trying to help you – they’re building a case. Your job is to politely decline to answer questions and request an attorney. That’s it. Nothing more.

Preserve All Evidence (But Don’t Tamper With Anything)

You might be tempted to delete posts, clear your browser history, or destroy devices. Do not do this. Obstruction charges can be added to your case, and the act of deletion itself becomes evidence that you knew your conduct was wrong.

Instead, preserve everything exactly as it is. Take screenshots if your worried platforms might delete content. Document the full context of conversations. Save any evidence that shows your statements where not serious threats – sarcasm indicators, responses from others who clearly didn’t take it seriously, account information showing satirical intent.

Your attorney will hire forensic experts to analyze all of this properly. They’ll reconstruct deleted material (yes, its usually recoverable), analyze metadata, and build a comprehensive picture of context that prosecutors often ignore in there initial investigation.

Document Everything About Context

While events are still fresh in your mind, write down everything you remember about the context of any statements you made:

1. What was happening in the news that day? Was there a controversial court decision that triggered public debate?
2. Were you responding to someone else’s post or comment?
3. What was your emotional state? Were you venting frustration, or where you making a genuine threat?
4. How did others respond? Did anyone take your statement seriously, or did they understand it as rhetoric?
5. What’s the history of your account or online presence? Are you known for hyperbolic political commentary?
6. Did you use any indicators of non-serious intent (emojis, “lol,” sarcasm tags)?

All of this matters. Your attorney will use it to build a defense based off the distinction between protected speech and true threats.

Contact a Federal Defense Attorney Immediately

Not tomorrow. Not after you “see what happens.” Now. Federal investigations move quickly, and early intervention by skilled counsel can make the difference between charges being filed and cases being dropped before indictment.

And not just any defense attorney – you need someone with specific federal experience in threat cases. State criminal defense experience doesn’t translate well to federal court. The rules are different, the procedures are more complex, and the stakes are much higher.

Finding the Right Federal Defense Attorney for Threat Charges

The most common complaint brought against lawyers is lack of communication and neglect. In a federal threat case – where your potentially facing years in federal prison – you cannot afford an attorney who doesn’t return calls, doesn’t keep you informed, or doesn’t understand the unique aspects of these prosecutions.

Why Federal Experience Is Essential (Not Just Helpful)

Federal court operates under different rules than state court. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, federal sentencing guidelines, and federal case law precedents are complex systems that require specific expertise. An attorney who primarily handles state cases – even if they’re excellent in state court – may not understand federal procedure nuances.

More importantly, you need an attorney with specific experience in 18 U.S.C. § 115 prosecutions and First Amendment defense strategies. These cases turn on constitutional analysis and the “true threat” legal standard – areas where general federal criminal defense experience helps but specialized knowledge is critical.

Questions to Ask Potential Attorneys

When your interviewing federal defense attorneys (and you should interview several), ask these specific questions:

• How many federal threat cases have you handled? You want someone who’s actually defended these charges, not someone who’s “familiar with the statute.”
• What’s your experience with First Amendment defenses? These cases require constitutional analysis skills that not all criminal defense attorneys possess.
• Have you handled cases in this specific federal district? Local federal court knowledge matters – different districts have different prosecution patterns and judicial attitudes.
• What’s your communication protocol? How often will they update you? How quickly do they return calls? Given that communication failures are the top complaint against attorneys, nail this down upfront.
• Have you negotiated plea deals in threat cases before indictment? Early intervention can sometimes resolve cases before formal charges are filed.
• What’s your trial experience in federal court? If negotiations fail, you need someone who’s comfortable going to trial in federal court.

Red Flags in Attorney Selection

Watch out for these warning signs when selecting federal defense counsel:

• Attorneys who minimize the seriousness of federal charges (“oh, this is no big deal”)
• Lawyers who promise specific outcomes (“I can definitely get this dismissed”)
• Attorneys who don’t ask detailed questions about your case during initial consultation
• Lawyers who don’t have specific federal threat case experience but claim they can “figure it out”
• Attorneys who don’t clearly explain their fee structure and costs
• Lawyers who pressure you to hire them immediately without time to consider options

Cost Considerations and Payment Options

Federal defense representation is expensive. There’s no way around that. Experienced federal attorneys with threat case specialization typically charge $15,000-$50,000+ depending on case complexity, whether it goes to trial, and geographic location.

But here’s what you need to understand: the cost of inadequate representation is much higher then attorney fees. A conviction means federal prison time, a felony record that destroys employment prospects, and potential terrorism enhancements that add years to your sentence. This is not the place to cut corners.

Many federal defense attorneys offer payment plans or will work with you on fee structures. Some accept credit cards or payment financing. Ask about options – most attorneys would rather work out a payment arrangement then see you go unrepresented or settle for inadequate counsel.

Public Defender vs Private Counsel

If you financially qualify for a federal public defender, don’t assume private counsel is automatically better. Federal public defenders are experienced federal court attorneys who handle these cases regularly. They often have more trial experience then private attorneys and know the local federal judges and prosecutors well.

The downside? Federal public defenders carry heavy caseloads. Communication can be challenging. You may not get as much individual attention or time as you would with private counsel. But if cost is genuinely prohibitive, a federal public defender is far better then a cheap private attorney without relevant experience.

Defense Strategies in Federal Threat Cases

Understanding how experienced federal defenders approach these cases can help you evaluate whether your attorney is using the right strategies. These aren’t cookie-cutter cases – each defense needs to be tailored to your specific facts, context, and the evidence prosecutors have.

Challenging the “True Threat” Standard

This is often the centerpiece of the defense. Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your statement constituted a “true threat” under Supreme Court precedent – not just offensive speech, not just angry rhetoric, but a genuine expression of intent to harm that would cause a reasonable person to fear violence.

Your attorney should be analyzing every aspect of your statement through this lens:

• Was the language conditional (“someone should”) or direct (“I will”)?
• Was it made in a political context where hyperbole is common?
• Did you have any history of violent conduct or escalating behavior?
• How did the recipient and others interpret the statement?
• Was there any indication you had means or intent to carry out the threat?

Strong defenses focus on showing that your statement – when viewed in full context – was clearly rhetorical political speech, not a genuine threat. This often involves expert testimony about online communication norms, political rhetoric patterns, and linguistic analysis.

First Amendment Constitutional Defenses

The First Amendment doesn’t protect true threats, but it does protect vast categories of speech that might sound threatening when stripped of context. Experienced federal defenders bring First Amendment specialists into these cases – attorneys who understand constitutional law nuances and can argue that prosecuting your speech violates constitutional protections.

This defense strategy works best when you can show:

• Your statement was political advocacy, not a personal threat
• The speech addressed matters of public concern (judicial decisions, government policy)
• The context makes clear you where engaging in protected expression
• Prosecuting your speech would chill legitimate political discourse

Recent 2025 developments have actually strengthened these defenses. Federal judges themselves have been speaking out about concerns that overly aggressive threat prosecutions could chill legitimate criticism of the judiciary. The February 2025 letter from Duke Law School’s Bolch Judicial Institute and the October 2025 legal coalition defending judges both emphasized the importance of protecting legitimate discourse while addressing genuine threats.

Context and Intent Analysis

Remember: federal prosecutors must prove you intended to threaten. Not that you intended to express anger. Not that you intended to criticize harshly. They must prove you intended to communicate a threat that would make someone fear violence.

Your defense should focus on all evidence showing you lacked that specific intent:

• You where venting frustration about a legal decision
• You where participating in political debate using hyperbolic language
• You had no actual plan, means, or capability to harm anyone
• You made no effort to actually communicate the threat to the judge
• Your statement was made to an audience that would understand it as rhetoric

Mental Health Mitigation

If your case does proceed to sentencing, mental health issues can be critical mitigation. Were you experiencing a mental health crisis when you made the statement? Where you under the influence of substances that impaired judgment? Did you have untreated mental illness affecting your behavior?

But here’s the nuance: mental health evaluations are double-edged swords. They can help show you weren’t thinking clearly and didn’t form genuine intent to threaten. But they can also reveal ongoing risk or inability to control behavior, which prosecutors will use to argue for detention or harsh sentences.

Never agree to a mental health evaluation as part of investigation or pretrial conditions without consulting your attorney about strategic implications. These evaluations should be conducted by defense experts, not court-appointed evaluators, and should occur only after your attorney has fully analyzed whether they help or hurt your case.

Plea Negotiation Strategies

Many federal threat cases resolve through plea negotiations rather then trials. An experienced federal defense attorney should begin exploring negotiation options immediately – sometimes even before indictment.

Federal prosecutors have significant discretion in charging decisions. The difference between a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 115 (threatening federal officials) versus state-level harassment can be 5-10 years of prison time. Early intervention that emphasizes mitigating factors can sometimes result in reduced charges or pretrial diversion programs.

Mitigating factors your attorney should emphasize in negotiations:

• Lack of prior criminal history
• Mental health issues or substance abuse problems
• Genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility
• Misunderstanding of legal consequences of online speech
• No actual capability or plan to harm anyone
• Single isolated incident versus pattern of behavior

Federal Court Process and Timeline: What to Expect

Understanding what happens next can reduce some of the anxiety your feeling. Federal criminal cases follow a predictable process, though timelines can vary significantly based on case complexity and court schedules.

Investigation Phase

This is where you might be right now. The FBI investigates threats against federal judges. They’ll review social media, interview witnesses, analyze communications, and build a case file for federal prosecutors.

The investigation phase can last weeks to months. You might not even know your under investigation until agents show up to interview you or execute a search warrant. This is why if you have any reason to believe you might be investigated, contacting an attorney proactively is smart.

Charges and Indictment

Federal prosecutors can charge you in two ways: through a criminal complaint (for immediate arrests) or through grand jury indictment. Most threat cases proceed through grand jury indictment, where prosecutors present evidence to a grand jury of citizens who decide whether there’s probable cause to charge you.

You have no right to present evidence or testify before the grand jury (though sometimes defense attorneys negotiate proffer sessions with prosecutors before indictment). The grand jury process is one-sided, and indictments are common – there’s a saying that prosecutors can “indict a ham sandwich” because the standard is so low and defendants have no opportunity to present their side.

Initial Appearance and Detention Hearing

After indictment, you’ll have an initial appearance before a federal magistrate judge. This is where you’ll be formally advised of charges, appoint counsel if you haven’t already, and address pretrial detention versus release.

In threat cases, detention can be a significant issue. Prosecutors often argue that defendants who threatened judges pose a danger to the community or risk of flight. Your attorney should be prepared to present a strong release plan: family support, employment, mental health treatment, electronic monitoring, or other conditions that address the court’s concerns.

Pretrial Motions and Discovery

Your attorney will file various pretrial motions challenging the charges, suppressing evidence, or dismissing the case on constitutional grounds. This is where First Amendment defenses and true threat challenges get litigated.

Discovery is the process where prosecutors must turn over evidence they plan to use and any exculpatory evidence that might help your defense. In threat cases, this includes social media records, witness statements, expert reports, and any communications you had.

Plea Negotiations or Trial

Most federal cases resolve through plea agreements rather then trials. Federal conviction rates at trial are extremely high – over 90% – because prosecutors generally don’t take weak cases to trial and have extensive resources for preparation.

But that doesn’t mean you should automatically plead guilty. If you have strong First Amendment defenses or genuine questions about whether your speech constituted a true threat, trial might be your best option. Your attorney should give you honest assessment of trial risks versus plea benefits.

Sentencing

If you plead guilty or are convicted at trial, sentencing occurs several months later. Federal sentencing is governed by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines – complex calculations based on offense characteristics and criminal history that produce a recommended sentencing range.

For threats against federal officials under § 115, base offense levels start at 12, but enhancements can increase this significantly. Threats that caused substantial disruption, involved weapons, or included terrorism elements trigger additional levels that can double recommended sentences.

Sentencing is where mitigation matters most. Your attorney should present evidence of mental health issues, family circumstances, employment history, lack of prior criminal conduct, and genuine remorse. Character letters from employers, family, and community members can make a difference.

Typical Timeline From Investigation to Resolution

Every case is different, but here’s a rough timeline for federal threat prosecutions:

• Investigation: 2-6 months (sometimes longer)
• Indictment to initial appearance: Days to weeks
• Initial appearance to arraignment: 1-2 weeks
• Arraignment to trial/plea: 6-18 months
• Conviction/plea to sentencing: 3-4 months

So from investigation to final resolution, your looking at roughly 12-24 months in most cases. Complex cases with extensive pretrial litigation can take longer.

The Unique Threat Environment of 2025: Context for Your Case

Your case doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Understanding the broader 2025 threat environment helps explain both why your being prosecuted and potential defense strategies based off what judges themselves are saying about these issues.

400+ Threats in Eight Months: What This Means for Defendants

The sheer volume of threats against federal judges in 2025 has created an unprecedented crisis in the federal judiciary. Judges are experiencing bomb scares, swatting incidents (false emergency calls designed to trigger armed police response), doxxing (publication of personal information like home addresses), and coordinated harassment campaigns.

For defendants, this environment cuts both ways. On one hand, prosecutors are under enormous pressure to aggressively prosecute these cases to deter future threats. Judges who’ve personally experienced threats may be less sympathetic to defendants. Federal protective services are on high alert, and any conduct that even potentially threatens judicial security is being taken seriously.

On the other hand, the volume of cases means courts are developing more sophisticated understanding of what constitutes genuine threats versus protected speech. Prosecutors can’t possibly pursue every angry comment or hyperbolic statement with equal vigor – they need to prioritize actual dangers. Your attorney should be arguing that your case represents the kind of rhetorical speech that doesn’t merit federal prosecution.

Political Polarization and Judicial Independence

Many 2025 threats against judges stem from controversial decisions in politically charged cases. Judges handling election disputes, abortion cases, immigration matters, or other hot-button issues face particular risk of threats from individuals who vehemently disagree with their rulings.

This context is important for your defense. If your statement was made in response to a controversial judicial decision, your attorney should emphasize the political nature of your speech. You where exercising your First Amendment right to criticize government officials and their decisions – the exact type of speech the Constitution most strongly protects.

Social Media Amplification: The Double-Edged Sword

Social media has amplified both the volume of threats and the visibility of what might once have been private venting. A comment you made to 50 Twitter followers can be screenshotted, shared, and reported to authorities within hours. Content that would have disappeared in pre-internet days now lives forever in digital archives.

But social media also provides defense opportunities. The norms of online communication are different from face-to-face speech. Hyperbole is common. Sarcasm and satire are everywhere. What sounds threatening when read literally by federal investigators might have been clearly understood as rhetoric by your actual audience.

Swatting and Doxxing as Aggravating Factors

Recent prosecutions show federal prosecutors increasingly charging judicial threats alongside related conduct. If you engaged in or had knowledge of swatting attempts (false emergency calls to trigger police response at a judge’s home), doxxing (publishing judges’ personal information), or coordinated harassment campaigns, prosecutors may add terrorism enhancements under 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5).

These enhancements can potentially double sentences under federal guidelines. Your attorney should immediately audit your entire online presence and any associations with groups or individuals who engaged in these activities. Even if you didn’t personally participate in swatting or doxxing, evidence that you encouraged it or knew about it can trigger additional charges.

Judges Speaking Out: A Potential Defense Tool

An unusual development in 2025 is that federal judges themselves are publicly discussing the threat environment. Some have expressed concern that overly aggressive prosecution of marginal cases could chill legitimate criticism of the judiciary – exactly the kind of thing the First Amendment is supposed to protect.

Your defense attorney should be monitoring these statements and potentially incorporating them into sentencing arguments. When even judges recognize that not all angry speech constitutes genuine threats, it strengthens arguments that your case represents overreach rather than appropriate prosecution.

Special Considerations and Related Issues

Legitimate Complaints vs Criminal Threats: Understanding the Difference

You might be wondering: if I can’t threaten a judge, how do I address genuine concerns about judicial misconduct or errors? The answer is there are proper legal channels for complaints that are completely separate from criminal threats.

Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, anyone can file a complaint alleging a federal judge has committed misconduct or has a disability that prevents them from performing their duties. These complaints are handled by the circuit judicial council – other judges who review the allegations and can take disciplinary action if warranted.

This process is for legitimate concerns about judicial behavior: conflicts of interest, bias, failure to perform duties, unethical conduct. Its not for disagreeing with judicial decisions (judges have wide discretion in rulings and can’t be disciplined for legal errors), but it is the appropriate mechanism for raising genuine misconduct concerns.

The key distinction: filing a formal complaint through proper channels is protected activity. Making threats – even if motivated by genuine grievances – is criminal conduct. You can challenge judicial decisions through appeals, you can file misconduct complaints, you can publicly criticize judges, but you cannot threaten violence.

Threats Against Defense Attorneys: An Emerging Prosecutorial Focus

The September 2025 Minnesota indictment marked a disturbing trend: prosecution of threats not just against judges but also against defense attorneys. This case charged a defendant with threatening to murder a federal judge, a Supreme Court Justice, and a defense attorney who had represented unpopular clients.

For defendants in threat cases, this raises important considerations. If your charged conduct included threats against attorneys (prosecution or defense), expect even more aggressive prosecution. Threats against defense attorneys strike at the heart of the legal system’s ability to function – if lawyers can’t represent clients without fearing for there safety, the adversarial system collapses.

Family Member Involvement and Exposure

Federal threat statutes extend beyond the official themselves to include threats against family members. If you made statements threatening a judge’s spouse, children, or other family members, you can be charged under the same statutes with the same penalties.

Additionally, prosecutors sometimes investigate whether family members or associates were involved in threats or harassment. If you shared plans with others, if you encouraged others to contact a judge, or if others participated in what prosecutors view as a coordinated campaign, they could face charges as well. Be mindful that your conduct doesn’t expose family members to criminal liability.

Media Attention and Public Record Concerns

Federal court proceedings are public records. If your charged with threatening a federal judge – particularly if its a high-profile judge or case – expect media coverage. Your name, charges, and details of your case will likely be reported.

This creates long-term consequences beyond the criminal case itself. Employment background checks will reveal the charges. Internet searches of your name will surface news articles. Future opportunities may be affected even if you’re ultimately acquitted or charges are dismissed.

Your attorney can sometimes negotiate to keep certain details sealed or confidential, but the basic fact of charges will be public. This is another reason early intervention and resolution before indictment can be valuable – if charges are never filed, there’s no public record of the investigation.

Taking Action: What You Need to Do Right Now

If your facing federal investigation or charges for threatening a judge, time is not on your side. Federal cases move quickly once they’re initiated, and decisions you make in the next days and weeks can determine the outcome of your case.

Step One: Stop Talking (Except to Your Attorney)

Seriously – stop. Don’t talk to investigators. Don’t talk to friends or family about the details of what happened. Don’t post about it on social media. Don’t try to “explain yourself” to anyone. Every statement you make can and will be used against you.

The only person you should be talking to about your case is your attorney. Attorney-client communications are privileged and protected. Everything else is fair game for prosecutors.

Step Two: Contact a Federal Defense Attorney Today

Not tomorrow. Not after you “think about it.” Today. Federal defense attorneys can intervene early in investigations, potentially preventing charges from being filed at all. Once your indicted, options narrow significantly.

Use the guidance in this article to find an attorney with specific federal threat case experience. Interview multiple attorneys if possible. Ask the questions we’ve outlined. Make sure you feel confident in your attorney’s expertise and communication style.

Step Three: Follow Your Attorney’s Advice

Once you have counsel, listen to them. Don’t make decisions about your case unilaterally. Don’t contact prosecutors or investigators yourself. Don’t try to “fix things” on your own. Federal criminal defense requires specific expertise and strategy – trust the professional you hired.

The Reality: Strong Defense Makes All the Difference

Federal judicial threat cases are serious. The potential consequences are severe. But they’re also highly defensible when you have experienced counsel who understands First Amendment law, the true threat standard, and federal criminal procedure.

Many cases that initially look overwhelming to defendants can be resolved favorably with strong legal representation. Charges get reduced. Cases get dismissed. Sentences get mitigated. But none of that happens if you try to navigate the federal system alone or with inadequate counsel.

You’re facing one of the most serious situations of your life. The federal government has nearly unlimited resources to prosecute you. But you have constitutional rights, and you have the right to vigorous defense by competent counsel. Exercise those rights. Fight for your freedom. Don’t give up before the process even begins.

The fear your feeling right now is real and justified. But fear shouldn’t paralyze you. Use it to motivate immediate action: contact qualified federal defense attorneys, preserve evidence, and prepare for the fight ahead. Your freedom depends on the decisions you make in the next days and weeks.