A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump in 2018 announced that he had resigned from the largest association of federal judges, decrying how the group issued a rare statement last week condemning recent alleged threats against judges but stayed quiet for years while conservative members of the judiciary faced scrutiny and attack.
Judge James C. Ho, of the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, announced his departure from the Federal Judges Association during a speaking event Saturday hosted by the conservative Federalist Society at the University of Michigan Law School. It comes in response to the 1,100-member group issuing a statement on March 5 saying in part that ‘judges must be permitted to do their jobs without fear of violence or intimidation of any kind.’ Trump and his allies have grown increasingly critical of judges who have blocked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and other aspects of the administration’s agenda, while DOGE leader Elon Musk last month called for an ‘immediate wave of judicial impeachments.’
‘I was very surprised by that statement. And the next morning, I sent an email to the organization saying that I wanted to resign,’ Ho said of the Federal Judges Association. ‘I researched for myself, and I also asked the association if they ever issued any such statements when Justice Thomas received attacks, or Justice Alito. Justice Kavanaugh dealt with an assassination attempt. We’ve had federal district judges in Texas and in Florida – as well as, I’m sure, other states, but those are the ones that come to mind immediately – all faced the kinds of things that that statement was complaining about and more. Did we see these statements in 2024 or 2023 or 2022? From what I can tell, no.’
‘You can’t say that you’re in favor of judicial independence only when it comes to decisions that you like. That’s not protecting the judiciary, that’s politicizing the judiciary,’ Ho said, arguing that such statements actually harm the cause they try to further. ‘Because one of two things turns out to be true when you’re selective in this way. And either of these options, I think, is a bad thing. Option number one is that you’re basically lying, that you actually don’t care about this principle because you didn’t stand up for it when the shoe was on the other foot, and so you’re telling the world essentially we’re not seriously committed to judicial independence.’
‘The alternative is perhaps even worse, which is that you are telling the truth – you do care about this, this principle, whether it’s judicial independence or free speech. I think this concept applies to a lot of things,’ Ho continued. ‘If you’re telling the truth, you really care about this principle, but there are just some people who have views that are so anathema to you that you don’t think they are worthy of this principle that you expound on.’
‘And so what you may think is a statement born of righteousness I think is perceived by a lot of people as merely sanctimonious,’ he concluded.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Federal Judges Association for comment, but they did not immediately respond.
The president of the Federal Judges Association, U.S. Circuit Judge J. Michelle Childs, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, wrote in an email to members last week that the ‘judiciary faces growing threats, including violence, intimidation, disinformation, and unprecedented impeachments that challenge its independence,’ according to Reuters.
The Federal Judges Association then released a lengthier public statement the next day that did not elaborate on specific threats against specific judges.
It began by saying that ‘recent events are a clear and urgent reminder that federal judges play a crucial role in upholding our democracy as guardians of the rule of law.’
‘In the history of our Republic, there has always been tension between the three separate and equal branches of the federal government, including criticism of judicial interpretations. The FJA strives to ensure that accurate information is shared with all American citizens regarding the role of the judiciary as defined in the U.S. Constitution: to impartially interpret the laws that have been created by the U.S. Congress and enforced by the Executive branch,’ the group said. ‘Specific decisions issued by judges are not formed from individual opinions, but rather are prepared against evaluation of what the ‘laws on the books’ require.’
The group commended those, including Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, ‘who have commented recently on the rise in criticism, threats and violence aimed at members of the judiciary.’
‘Irresponsible rhetoric shrouded in disinformation undermines the public’s confidence that our justice system can fulfill its constitutional duties,’ the statement said. ‘The security of federal judges and all those serving in the judicial branch of our government is fundamental to their ability to uphold the rule of law, and to fulfill their constitutional duty without fear or undue influence. Any erosion in the independence of the judiciary is a threat to our Constitution and to democratic rule of law. Ensuring judicial security is not just about protecting individuals, it is about preserving the integrity of our legal system and the public’s trust in an impartial judiciary.’