American judges are traditionally expected to avoid political debate, public demonstrations and the daily struggle for media attention. They issue rulings, explain the law and allow the written record to speak for them.
A bipartisan group of sitting and retired judges now argues that remaining silent carries its own danger.
Nearly 30 judges, lawyers and civic leaders recently traveled through Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan as part of the Justice in Motion tour, visiting courthouses, community centers and public squares to explain why an independent judiciary matters outside the legal profession.
The tour began in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, and continued through Washington, Columbus, Wooster and Cleveland before ending in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. Organizers described it as a nonpartisan effort to connect the rule of law with the everyday concerns of ordinary Americans.
TRENDING TODAY
For retired Ohio Supreme Court Justice Michael Donnelly and retired North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Robert Orr, the decision to participate represented a departure from the restraint expected during their judicial careers.
The two judges came from different political backgrounds. Donnelly was elected as a Democrat, while Orr served as a Republican before later becoming an independent. Their shared message is that judicial independence should not belong to either party.
That distinction matters. Judges should not become campaign surrogates or publicly lobby for preferred case outcomes. But explaining why court orders must be respected is different from campaigning for a political candidate.
The judicial system has no independent military force or political machine capable of guaranteeing compliance with its decisions. Its authority depends largely on elected officials, government agencies and the public accepting that unfavorable rulings must still be followed.
That agreement begins to weaken when politicians describe courts as legitimate only when judges rule in their favor.
The Justice in Motion participants said they were inspired partly by Polish judges who left their courthouses and traveled through communities to explain the constitution and judicial independence. Poland’s widely recognized “March of 1,000 Robes” brought judges and lawyers from across Europe into the streets during a prolonged dispute over political influence on the country’s courts.
The American comparison should not be exaggerated. The two countries have different constitutions, legal systems and political histories. Still, the lesson is relevant: public institutions become easier to undermine when citizens do not understand what those institutions actually protect.
The rule of law is not limited to nationally watched cases involving presidents, immigration or elections. It is what allows a small business to enforce a contract, a homeowner to challenge an unlawful government decision and an individual citizen to enter a courtroom against a far more powerful institution.
Independent judges do not guarantee that every ruling will be correct. Courts make errors, which is why appeals exist. Legislatures can also change laws within constitutional limits, while citizens can pursue constitutional amendments through established procedures.
What cannot become normal is the idea that officials may ignore a lawful ruling simply because they dislike its result.
The judges’ warnings come amid a measurable increase in security concerns. The U.S. Marshals Service recorded 564 threats against federal judges during fiscal year 2025, compared with 509 the previous year. Through July 15, 2026, the agency had already recorded 383 threats involving 286 individual judges.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has also warned that personal attacks against federal judges are dangerous and should stop. His intervention followed increasingly aggressive public criticism of judges handling politically sensitive cases.
Criticism of judicial reasoning remains legitimate and necessary. Judges hold enormous power and should face scrutiny over their interpretation of laws, ethics, financial disclosures and potential conflicts of interest.
The line is crossed when criticism turns into personal intimidation, demands for retaliation or suggestions that government compliance is optional.
There is also a risk on the other side. Judges who speak too frequently or too directly about current political conflicts could damage the appearance of impartiality they are attempting to defend. The Justice in Motion participants must therefore maintain a careful distinction between explaining constitutional principles and opposing a particular administration.
Their strongest argument is not that every court deserves automatic trust. It is that disagreements must be resolved through the legal process rather than through threats or political power.
The tour’s real audience was not only lawyers or judges. It was citizens who may never enter a courtroom but rely every day on systems built around predictable rules.
Four days of public events will not reverse decades of political polarization. But the effort recognizes a basic weakness in the judiciary: courts cannot preserve public confidence while remaining completely absent from the public conversation.
Restraint remains one of the judiciary’s greatest strengths. In a period of growing threats and open hostility toward judges, however, silence may no longer be enough.
Why It Matters
Independent courts provide ordinary people with a place to challenge corporations, government agencies and powerful political figures under the same written laws.
When compliance with court rulings depends on whether elected officials approve of the result, legal rights become vulnerable to political influence. That uncertainty can affect civil liberties, property, contracts, elections and public confidence in government.
What Comes Next
Organizers are expected to continue public education efforts about judicial independence and constitutional government beyond the initial Midwest tour.
Judges participating in future events will need to preserve their nonpartisan message while explaining more clearly how attacks on courts affect families, businesses and local communities.
The broader test will be whether political leaders continue challenging rulings through appeals and legislation—or increasingly treat judges and lawful court orders as obstacles that can be threatened, punished or ignored.
