Greetings Alaskans!

2025 Legislative Session Comes to a Close:

It is that time of the year when the Alaska State Legislature begins to wrap up its business for this session. This is where things stand regarding SJR 13, discussed in previous newsletters. The Senate State Affairs Committee conducted a hearing on SJR 13 last month and has not reported the bill out of committee. While we cannot state with certainty that this bill will not grab a pair of legs during this session, we believe we will not see it again this year.

Attacks on Lawyers, the Constitution, the Independence of the Courts, and Intimidation of Judges Threaten the Rule of Law

On a different but very related note, we have a roundup of attacks against judges, lawyers, the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law. The totality of these myriad attacks continues to affect the rule of law and the future of judicial independence in Alaska, and across the United States.

The U.S. Constitution establishes federal courts as a separate and independent branch of the federal government. Congress enacted legislation for the administration of the federal judiciary: the Judicial Conference of the United States is the national policymaking body for the federal courts, along with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), which has responsibilities in specified areas for policymaking for the federal courts. America First Legal Foundation recently sued the Judicial Conference and the AO in an attempt to bring the federal judiciary to heel under the Executive Branch. The lawsuit is, at its core, an attack on the independence of the federal judiciary. Here and here.

On judicial independence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently expressed concern about the ultimate impact of judicial intimidation tactics:

“Across the nation, judges are facing increased threats of not only physical violence but also professional retaliation, just for doing our jobs…Threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government. And they ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law.” Read the full text here.

Intimidation attacks against judges continue nationwide:
  • When U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg ruled against the Administration, many of his supporters “unleashed a wave of threats and menacing posts” targeting the judge, his brother, and his daughter, including calls for the family’s execution.
  • Other federal judges and families of U.S. Supreme Court justices across the political spectrum have also been attacked. Federal judges across seven states received unsolicited pizza deliveries designed to threaten and menace those who rule against the Administration.
  • Threats of impeachment continue as an intimidation tactic.
  • Two senior judges appointed by Republican presidents spoke out against the attacks on their colleagues, noting that intimidating judges so that they shy away from their constitutional duties “[]jeopardizes the rule of law…And without the rule of law, every liberty and every right that we cherish as Americans is vulnerable.” Here.
  • Federal law enforcement arrested a Wisconsin judge alleging she shielded an undocumented immigrant from deportation authorities. A bi-partisan group of judges criticized the arrest, noting that it “was nothing but an effort to threaten and intimidate the state and federal judiciaries…. This cynical effort undermines the rule of law and destroys the trust the American people have in the nation’s judges to administer justice in the courtrooms and in the halls of justice across the land.”
  • In his opinion relating to the presidential Executive Order 14230, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell noted that since its founding era this country has recognized the essential role of independent lawyers to “ensuring the American judicial system’s fair and impartial administration of justice.…” Finding the Executive Order unconstitutional as an attempt to exert control over which clients (and which matters) Perkins Coie could represent, Judge Howell noted that 250 years ago, John Adams supported the principle that “the Bar ought…to be independent and impartial at all Times And in every Circumstance.” Here.
  • In a similar lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge Loren AliKahn found a presidential Executive Order against the law firm Sussman Godfrey was a personal vendetta reflecting “a shocking abuse of power.”

It is noteworthy that a large group of organizations from across the ideological spectrum support the independence of lawyers and their firms and appreciate the significance of the threats against them. The Cato Institute underscored that the “fundamental rights to free speech and legal counsel transcend political ideology and partisan politics.”

More to come in June. Until then, many thanks to each of you for your work, and for believing in the importance of our work. We need you.