In 2020, a man killed this judge’s son. He was coming for her

The nation’s judges are facing an unprecedented threat — at least that’s what U.S. District Judge Esther Salas argues. She would know: Five years ago, she was targeted by an assassin. And still, she thinks the problem is getting worse.

The U.S. Marshals Service, which protects the federal judiciary, recorded some 408 threats against federal judges between the start of the fiscal year in October and June 16, the New Jersey jurist told Salon, citing data she received from a contact at the agency. That number is quickly approaching the 457 total serious threats against federal judges reported in fiscal year 2023 and nearly double the 224 threats recorded in fiscal year 2021, per Reuters. The stakes have only risen during President Donald Trump‘s time in office; as his administration defies lawful court orders, federal and elected officials have maligned and called for jurists’ impeachment after unfavorable rulings.

Judges, including Salas, have been sounding the alarm since before Trump took office. Chief Justice John Roberts raised concerns in his 2024 year-end report and, indeed, Salas has been speaking out for years now, primarily motivated by her son, Daniel Anderl’s, 2020 murder by a disgruntled litigant — who was coming for her. But seeing the ongoing erosion in the public’s trust in the judicial branch and the escalating threats her colleagues have received this year has pushed her to take her advocacy a step further, she said.

Salas spoke to Salon ahead of the July 31 Speak Up for Justice forum, a grassroots monthly webinar advocating for the judiciary. At that event, she and other judges will discuss how some public officials’ rhetoric puts a target on their backs, demonstrated by a recent uptick in so-called “pizza doxing” — sending food to a judge’s home address — and the harm those acts pose to democracy. The threats facing judges appeared to weigh especially heavily on Salas, this conversation coming just days after she marked the fifth anniversary of her son’s tragic death.

“I know what it’s like because I lost my only child — because I’m a federal judge. I have to live with that every single day,” she said. “I have to live with [the fact] that my job cost me the life of my only child, and I can tell you that thought alone is enough to keep someone up for days, because I’m living it.”

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

So far this year, we’ve seen an uptick in the threats against judges; FBI agents arresting a judge in Wisconsin; the Trump administration ignoring around a third of all major rulings against it across 165 cases, according to a Washington Post analysis that came out [Monday] morning. What are you making of this disregard for the judiciary, and how is the judiciary navigating this upheaval in this system of checks and balances, in our democracy?

I definitely think that we are in uncharted waters right now as a nation. I believe that judicial security and independence are being threatened on many, many fronts. I agree with [Chief Justice John Roberts] in his year-end report in 2024 when he talked about the illegitimate attacks against the judiciary, and we’re seeing those illegitimate attacks play out in real time. Violence — I’m living proof of that, violence. Judge [John] Roemer in Wisconsin, Judge [Andrew] Wilkinson in Maryland, the violence just keeps coming, and it doesn’t seem to be dissipating.

The chief justice talked about intimidation. Well, I don’t think we’ve seen the intimidation in the forms that we’ve seen as of late. It’s bad enough having members of Congress threatening to impeach judges because they disagree with our rulings; I’ve never seen, nor history has ever seen, anything like that. I think it’s bad enough threatening to take judicial actions against judges because you disagree with our rulings, instead of utilizing constitutional framework that we’ve all been operating under that if you don’t agree with a particular judge’s ruling, you appeal that judge to a higher court, and if you don’t agree with that higher court, you go to the United States Supreme Court. Clearly, there is a constitutional framework that we’ve all been operating under that now seems to be forgotten, or is not an acceptable form.

We need to go to the third illegitimate threat that the chief justice warned us about: the spreading of disinformation. Continuing to say over and over again that judges are rogue, that we’re monsters, that the system doesn’t work because we all have an agenda, that we’re corrupt, that we’re biased, all of these accusations — false accusations — are being used to undermine the public’s confidence in the justice system, and I think, are intentionally being done to dehumanize the judges that sit on the court. Let’s be clear: This is a specific game plan. This is in the playbook of toppling democracies, and we’re seeing that with the spreading of disinformation that starts at the top and trickles on down. Then, finally, threatening to not follow lawfully entered orders by the court.

I want to circle back to intimidations. We’re seeing powerful people — and powerful platforms — using those platforms to intimidate the judges. That is what some of our leaders are intending to do right now, and they do that in the form of threatening to impeach us, threatening to sue us. And let’s not forget what we’re calling “pizza doxing,” which is outrageous right now, not getting enough coverage. Hot off the presses here, I just sat for a conference planning session last week: State judges are getting pizzas. It’s just not being reported. In Florida, there are judges that received pizzas in the name of my murdered son. So we now know that the state judges are also getting pizzas, at least in Florida. And I think if anyone runs it down, they’re probably going to find that judges all over this country at the state and municipal level are also receiving these forms of intimidation.

On the subject of intimidation — that’s also one of the things that I wanted to get your thoughts on, particularly the pizza doxing you mentioned. … I want to ask, if you’re comfortable, first, how did learning of these [threats] make you feel? 

We just had the fifth-year anniversary of our child’s killing — of his murder — and that was on July 19, 2020, and this past Saturday, we had to deal with the fifth anniversary. His birthday was on July 13. Sandwiched in between July 13 and July 19 was probably the hardest week for [my husband] Mark and I to really deal with, on this road that we’re traveling that is unfathomable. My son stands for — and I speak of him in present tense — everything that’s beautiful about life and the gifts that we all derive from our source. For me, my son, he stands for love and light. In fact, right after his murder, I kept saying, “I have to stay in the light. I have to stay in the light, and I have to remember him with only love.”

In my mind, hate is heavy, love is light. That was something that kind of was born out of all this pain that we were feeling, and to hear and see and watch my son’s beautiful name be used to inflict terror and pain on my brothers and sisters on the bench, it has set me back. I, quite frankly, continue to move forward, but I can’t believe the depths that some people will go to without regard to the humanity and without regard to the feelings of his parents left behind.

I was shocked when the first pizza that we know of was delivered to one of my colleagues on April 6. And that poor colleague had to call me and tell me that he was just informed that Daniel’s name was either the recipient or the sender on that pizza. … The very first pizza that we know of in Daniel’s name was delivered to [Chief U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell], and we’re going to hear from him on what that was like to find out that the pizza was in my murdered son’s name, and how he had to process that phone call, and how he had to build up enough strength to call me to tell me this development, which was, of course, very troubling.

(Michael Loccisano/Getty Images) A view of the home of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas on July 20, 2020 in North Brunswick, New Jersey.

I can’t imagine how harmful that was [to you]. I also wanted to know: what did these threats and the rise in these threats tell you about the state and nature of political violence in our country right now?

It’s at an all-time high, in my opinion. The numbers are showing that it’s at an all-time high, but I think even the acts of cruelty, the lack of empathy, the lack of compassion from those that would would engage in such horrific conduct, says to me that these are threats with a purpose. Let’s be clear what all of this is: The purpose is to attack the rule of law, and in my opinion, it’s aimed at toppling our democracy. There is no doubt in my mind that if these continued threats and attacks against the rule of law continue and persist, we all stand to lose as a nation.

This is why it matters. It matters to everyone, every one of your viewers, every one of your subscribers, because the fact of the matter is, sometimes we get so busy in our lives, we’re trying to put food on the table and keep a roof over our head, and we’re dealing with the bombardment of negative news and what I call distraction. We’re looking one way, then we’re looking another, then we’re looking another, and we’re not looking at what’s really coming: that is a systematic attack on the rule of law, and that is what is happening.

I don’t blame people because right now, it’s hard to really understand from this point of view. When you’re just struggling to raise your family and keep your job and pay your insurance on your car, you can’t really think about the true danger that is several feet in front of you. I would say feet, some people would argue miles, but it’s right in front of us. And it’s sometimes hard for people to say, “Why does this matter to me?” And it matters because if you’re Jane Citizen, John Citizen, and you go up against a powerful opponent, you want the justice system to be blind. You want the judge not to look to see who the parties are. You don’t want the judge to look to see who has more money, who has a better agenda, who is this going to help, who is this going to hurt. No, you want the judge to look at the facts and the law, and that’s it. Because if you’re Jane Citizen or John Citizen, and you ever find yourself on the receiving end of something happening to you by a powerful adversary, you don’t want the judge worried that that he or she has to follow the powerful adversary because a threat will follow, or death will come, or they’ll be ripped from their position.

That’s why our founding fathers made sure, at least at the federal level, that Article III judges didn’t have to worry about that, didn’t have to worry that there would be retribution, reprisal or death — because they were entrusted to do their job for life. There are reasons for all of this. I understand it’s hard out there, but I really wish that people would understand the magnitude of what’s going on right now.

As we discussed earlier, you’ve been an outspoken participant in the “Speak Up for Justice” forums this year, advocating for your fellow judges at the federal, state and municipal levels. Of course, you’ve been speaking out since the tragic murder of your son in 2020, but what about this moment may be motivating you to really push to get your message through to the public?

Listen, I love this country. I love this country with all my heart. My son loved this country with all his heart. I feel, when I think about my mother’s life, being raised on a farm in Cuba, and my father’s life in Mexico, an understanding that only in America could a girl who grew up being raised by a single mom in Union City, New Jersey, on welfare, living in the projects rise to the level of becoming the first Latina district court judge in the District of New Jersey. Only in America. That’s why I love and I embrace my ethnicity, and I embrace my humble beginning because, at the end of the day, I think it’s what makes America beautiful. What makes America wonderful is just what we used to often refer to as the melting pot.

The fact of the matter is that I am very worried that we are headed down a road that, if we travel down, we may never be able to veer onto a democratic road again. I know what’s at stake. I’m living proof of what will happen if we don’t protect our judges. Mark and I just celebrated the fifth anniversary of our only child’s death — his murder, let me say it the right way. I wake up every morning, and Daniel’s the first thing that I think about. I go to bed at night, and he is the last thing, along with my God and my faith and my source, that I go to bed at night, holding onto, clinging to, because it is a pain that I can’t describe.

I can’t describe what it feels like for Mark and me every day to know that we don’t have Daniel, that we’re never going to be able to be the groom’s mom and the groom’s dad. We’re never going to see him get married. We’re never going to be grandparents. We’re never going to have those moments that maybe some of us take for granted in this world. But I know the pain, and that’s why I continue to fight because I want to be able to say that I did everything in my power to try to avoid this tragedy from happening again, and that I did everything that I could, as Daniel’s mom, to speak to and speak up for justice in this country.

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

With respect to [the number of pizzas delivered] being an underestimate, could you describe how those threats or acts of intimidation come to these judges? Are they aware that it is an act of intimidation to start, or can it come across as very innocuous — you don’t really know that you’re being targeted — until after the fact? 

Now? No. I’ll give you an example of what it’s like. Recently, my doorbell rang, and I wasn’t expecting anyone. My husband and I were in the kitchen, and my brother, who was visiting from out of state, was in another room, and we started screaming, “Don’t answer the door. Don’t answer the door.” And my husband goes, “Let me look at the camera.” I mean, we’re in our home on a weekend, and all of us literally stood frozen in fear. It turned out it was a friend that was stopping by to visit us, but that’s the kind of fear that now I think I can say with certainty that judges feel when the doorbell rings and we’re not expecting anyone.

Somebody will say, “It’s a pizza,” and in the beginning, people said, “Oh, pizza,” and they laugh. This is not just a pizza. This is bad actors — and I am of firm belief this is not a lone guy in a basement. These are targeted, strategic, collaborative acts that are done by several bad actors meant to chill the judiciary, meant to scare us. It sends messages, “We know where you live,” to those poor judges whose children have received pizzas at their own houses in other states. You’re going to hear from another judge [at the forum] who’s going to talk about how his adult son received a pizza in another state in my son’s name.

When we talk about putting Danny’s name associated with the order of these pizzas, that is not, “Oh, let me just pick a name.” It’s a name that is chosen intentionally. “Do you want to end up like Judge Salas? Do you want to end up like her murdered son?” That is an outright threat, and that is a threat to chill judges and make judges start thinking, “Hmm, if this is a close call, do I want problems?” Let’s be realistic about what that is like for the judge, who’s human underneath that robe. What’s that feel like? To me, these are threats with a purpose. These are not random acts of cruelty. These are threats with a purpose.

To your point, the nation has been rocked by a number of instances of political violence in recent years. Most recently, we saw the assassinations of those state lawmakers in Minnesota, and experts I’ve talked to pointed to our especially polarized viewpoints right now as part of the reason why we’re seeing this uptick in violence. How do you see that polarization influencing judges’ abilities to safely and effectively carry out their duties?

I honestly can’t speak to every judge out there, but I know that judges are on the front line protecting democracy. We know what’s at stake, and I believe that judges will always honor their oaths. Nowadays, certainly, you don’t become a judge just for the position and the prestige because I would even argue now that what has been done to the court has already damaged much of the public’s perception as to what it means to be a judge. I think we’ve already seen a dramatic erosion in the public’s confidence in the judiciary and the justice system.

That’s a sad fact, but I think a true one. So I do believe that, when push comes to shove, judges will do the right thing based on the law and will honor their commitment. But there must be so much that goes through a judge’s mind in terms of, “I’m about to issue a ruling. How do I know that my wife is going to be safe? How do I know my children are going to be safe? What can I do to ensure their safety?”

There’s this huge, black, ominous cloud that is looming over the third branch of government. Again, we’re human underneath these robes, and it is definitely something that I would imagine crosses a judge’s mind when assessing how he or she’s going to come out in a ruling. But I believe in this country. I believe in my colleagues. I believe in the rule of law, and I do continue to have faith that rulings will be rendered based on the facts and the law, and only those two things.

As a federal judge who has been personally touched by that kind of political violence, as you described today, what do you feel must be done in order for our nation to move toward a better, less violent, less polarized future?

I’ve been thinking about that. I’d love to answer this in two parts. The first one is the easier one: that we all be impeccable with our words, that we ask our leaders to lead responsibly, that we ask them to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric and begin to discuss the issues on the merits and stop personalizing the issues and the rulings and the people that make them. That is an easy fix. If we can all get back to civility, if we can all get back to professionalism — that’s easy, and for all of us. We can all do it. We can all decide that we are going to be impeccable with our word, and we are not going to denigrate, humiliate and castigate people who don’t agree with us, people who have a different opinion than our own. We could do this at every level of where we are right now.

If we can all agree that we are going to respect one another, and we are going to listen and maybe agree to disagree and not villainize the person that may not see life as you see it — that is something we can all do. It’s easy to do. It doesn’t require legislation. It doesn’t require anything other than us agreeing that we’re going to be more responsible in the words that come out of our mouths.

The harder fix is how do we protect our information? How do we as citizens begin to tighten our internet footprint? How are we going to be responsible with how much about us gets out there; and for political figures, it gets a little harder, but there’s a way to do it. You look at the Anderl Act that passed in December of 2022 as a blueprint for the protection of personally identifiable information by judges. If politicians wanted to also consider enacting laws, I would say to them, “Look to the Anderl Act.” It’s a solid piece of legislation that took into various considerations, including the First Amendment, and looks to try to narrowly tailor it so that it protected a legitimate interest in safety for judges and their family members. That’s a harder issue, but I do think every state and U.S. territory should look to enact laws like the Anderl Act and protect their judges at every level because the Anderl Act only protects federal judges. It doesn’t protect the 30,000 state and local judges that need protection as well.

We need to fund the Anderl Act. The Anderl Act passed in 2022 and has yet to have a grant program that is fully funded by Congress. We need to have money so that if there is a state or U.S. territory that needs startup seed money to create the infrastructure that one needs to begin to protect this type of information, they could come to the federal government and seek at least a loan or seed money with respect to their own state protections of the judiciary and, if necessary, other public or covered persons.

So states need to enact laws. The Anderl Act has to get fully funded, but the easiest one is the one I started with, which was asking our leaders to lead responsibly and, in turn, toning our own language down so that we are treating each other and living in a more civil and professional and, I think, just kind place. I mean, I want us to get back to kindness, get back to respecting one another, instead of villainizing anyone who you think doesn’t agree with you. There’s so much hate out there right now, and we’re seeing it from the top down. This awful name-calling — I mean, I can list for you, “monsters,” “crazy, leftist, unconstitutional judges,” “deranged” coming from the top. This kind of language — it’s just irresponsible. It invites people to take matters into their own hands. When our leaders speak of us with such disdain, it is as if they are saying or green-lighting, “Go get them.” It’s dangerous, and it’s going to get someone killed.

Your point about getting back to kindness — do you see that being part of how we protect our democracy moving forward?

There’s a new motto I’m using now, which is, “Measured, calm, yet strong.” I believe that when we are measured and deliberative and we are calm — and we are not mercurial, not raging — we can make more sound decisions because we’re operating using our cortex. We’re able to think things through, deliberate, be calm, be measured and, when possible, kind. It makes for sound decision-making. Whereas when we are angry and fired up and spitting out nonsense and taking firm positions — all of that sometimes doesn’t make for sound decision-making.

It’s great advice when we can say that there’s nothing weak about being kind. There’s nothing weak about being calm. There’s nothing weak about being deliberative. In fact, I think it’s a very strong place to start. Everyone needs to remember that with respect, with civility, with professionalism, we can get a lot done, and maybe we can do something about the senseless violence that seems to be pervading our communities and our justice system and beyond.