This week, we are providing a roundup of events and news stories from Alaska and across the country that highlight a growing threat level to judicial independence and the rule of law. We are taking this concerning trend extremely seriously and taking action to protect Alaska’s independent judiciary.

National Roundup

These stories caught our attention:

  • Reuters reported a rise in threats of physical violence aimed at our nation’s federal judiciary.
  • Members of Congress filed impeachment articles against four federal judges who issued unfavorable decisions against the new administration, accusing the judges of being “corrupt” and “evil” (for failing to rule in favor of the administration).
  • Members of the administration bragged about ignoring a federal judge’s ruling, asked an appellate court to remove the judge from the case, called the judge derogatory names, and continue to escalate hits attacks on this judge. USDOJ attorneys refused to respond to the judge’s direct questions, and members of the cabinet mocked the judge’s order. Border Czar Tom Homan defied the judge’s orders and stated that he “doesn’t care what the judges think.”
  • Elon Musk “derided the TYRANNY of the JUDICIARY,” here, accusing federal judges of being “threats to democracy,” turning the role of the judiciary on its proverbial head. Musk also offered to donate to those GOP members of Congress who support impeaching judges whose decisions rule against the Administration’s goals.
  • A group funded by Musk offered Wisconsin voters $100 each if they sign a petition that opposes “activist judges.
  • Many prominent members of the national legal community view new administration memos as efforts to intimidate lawyers who try to hold the administration accountable to the Constitution and the rule of law. Read more here, here and here.
Alaska Roundup

Governor Dunleavy recently introduced twin Resolutions to amend Alaska’s Constitution and abolish the Alaska Judicial Council’s role in evaluating and screening judicial applicants for Superior and Supreme Court positions. The resolutions would allow a governor to appoint any judicial applicant who meets only the minimum qualifications required by the Constitution – i.e. U.S. and Alaska residency and membership in the Alaska State Bar – without input from the Judicial Council. There would be no comprehensive screening of judicial applicants, or transparency around the governor’s appointment process, which would create very real opportunities for quid pro quo judicial appointments in exchange for fidelity to a governor’s agenda, whatever that might be. This scenario is exactly what the constitutional framers wanted to avoid.

Alaskans for Fair Courts Response

We are deeply concerned about a national movement to strip state and federal judicial systems of their independence, and attack the judges and processes that defend that independence. Especially viewed in light of the national dialogue, Alaska’s merit-based judicial selection system stands out not only as a safeguard for Alaskans, but as a model for the rest of the country. We intend to defend it.

Last year, we ran a six-figure education campaign to educate Alaskans about our system. During the election, we later ran a campaign to defend judges and justices who came under baseless partisan attack. We will continue that work – but can’t do it without your support.

If you care about the future of our great state, please join other Alaskans who support AFC’s efforts now to protect the integrity and independence of Alaska’s state courts. None of us can afford to hope that someone else – anyone else – will do the work. Don’t allow political actors to blur the line between the independence of our judicial branch of government and partisan politics.

Please join our effort and support our work to strengthen Alaskans’ faith in the independence of our judiciary. Our collective futures – our very freedom – might depend on it.

– Alaskans for Fair Courts