Bill to address threats against judges clears key hurdle -- despite opposition

As threats against judges surge nationwide, a California bill aimed at cracking down on those who intimidate the judiciary sparked unexpected pushback Tuesday from civil liberties advocates.

Assembly Bill 352, designed to let courts treat threats against judges as a sentencing enhancement, sailed through a key legislative committee. But the debate it stirred revealed the tricky balance between protecting the bench and preserving free speech and prosecutorial discretion.

"The bill sends a clear message that violent or threatening behavior will not be tolerated. With stronger laws in place, individuals who make threats are more likely to be held accountable for their actions," the bill's author, Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco, D-Downey, told the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

Pacheco referenced a widely cited 2020 National Judicial College survey that "revealed a majority of the judges feared for their safety and desired enhanced protection." She also noted research from the U.S. Marshals Service, which issued a new warning last week about growing threats against the federal judges it protects. According to figures published by the service, the number of threats against federal judges or other "protected persons," such as federal prosecutors or court staff, nationwide grew from 926 in the 2015 fiscal year to 4,511 in the 2021 fiscal year.

A committee analysis referenced several disturbing incidents that occurred during 2024. They included the murder of a judge in Kentucky, a suspect's attempt to assault a Nevada judge in court, and the bombing of a Santa Barbara County Superior Courthouse in Santa Maria in September that injured several people.

AB 352 would amend the California Penal Code to state, "A court may consider, as a factor in aggravation, that the defendant willfully threatened to commit a crime that would result in the death or great bodily injury of a judge or court commissioner."

"Nationally and here in California attacks and threats directed at the judiciary have dramatically increased," California Judges Association lobbyist Cliff Costa told the committee. "You heard the numbers that Assemblywoman Pacheco has mentioned. Let me say that that is more than five times the amount of threats that occurred just a decade ago. Just recently Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts remarked and noted the dramatic increase of threats against the judiciary."

But George Parampathu, legislative attorney for ACLU California Action, told the committee that current law already addresses these threats and warned AB 352 could have unintended consequences.

"A lot of the proponents' comments were about the integrity of the judicial process," Parampathu said. "I would like to note at the outset that the bill's language is not limited to court officials in their official capacity. Even if it was, as I will explain, that's already an aggravating factor under existing law."

He said that Penal Code Section 422, which the bill proposes to amend, "already punishes threats in all settings." Parampathu added that state law already gives prosecutors broad discretion to punish threats as misdemeanors or felonies, depending on severity and other details, and "already provides courts and juries a list of aggravating factors to consider." As written, he said, AB 352 could be used to add charges against someone who gets in an argument with someone "at a grocery store" then threatens them without knowing they are a judge.

"AB352 will not increase public safety," Parampathu said. "Even the federal Department of Justice has said that increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime."

These arguments did not dissuade the committee, which passed AB 352 on an 11-0 bipartisan vote. If signed, AB 352 would join a raft of other recent legislation around the country. At least 10 states passed new laws in 2024 to provide additional protection for judges. For instance, Maryland approved a law to protect judges' personal information, named for a judge murdered in 2023 by a disgruntled divorce litigant. Tennessee created a new felony for someone who attacks a judge in a courthouse. Virginia passed a new law setting minimum security for judges, while Washington gave new powers to the bailiffs of the Washington Supreme Court to investigate threats against justices.