Editor's Note: This story was updated on April 15 to include a response from Wyoming's U.S. senators and representative. Their response follows the original story transcript.
More than 100 members of the Wyoming State Bar are calling on the state’s Congressional delegation to denounce threats to judges and support the independence of the judicial branch.
Former Wyoming Supreme Court Chief Justice Marilyn Kite talked with Wyoming Public Radio’s Kamila Kudelska about what judges are facing, why name calling can be so damaging and how the public can help.
Editorial Note: This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.
Kamila Kudelska: Marilyn Kite, thank you for being here with me today. What type of attacks or threats were you guys referring to? What stood out to you? [Was there] a specific event or comment that prompted you to sign this letter?
Marilyn Kite: The event that prompted the letter, I think, was the attack on the federal judge who decided the case involving the Trump administration’s deportation of allegedly Venezuelan gang members. I don't know much about the facts of the case, but I do know that the response was to vilify a federal judge for the decision that he made.
KK: Why was that worrisome for you and other Wyoming members of the bar?
MK: There are many judges all over the country, not just federal judges, but state judges, who have been the victims of some kind of violent action, whether it be at their homes or threats on the telephone, in some cases brandishing of weapons.
That was probably the primary reason, but the underlying position is that when a judge makes a legal decision, which is his or her job, the other side doesn't like it, and then they are attacked personally and essentially want to throw out the system. It causes the public to think that that's what we do. If we don't like a judicial decision, we just call 'em a crook or a crazy, or what's the term they used? “Rogue.” They're a “rogue judge” if they decide against me. And that's damaging to our constitutional system.
KK: In the letter, you guys specifically called out the “disinformation in form of attacks on judges who have ruled against DOGE’s unprecedented actions.” So my understanding is it's the most recent decisions in regards to Trump's administration's actions, EOs (executive orders).
MK: Yes, that's right. There have been multiple decisions across the country on different aspects of the recent attempts to change our government.
KK: What about this current political environment feels different?
MK: Well, everything. You know, as I grew up and went to law school and practiced law, of course you're upset with a decision that is adverse to the cause that you're pursuing in court. But I, and certainly as long as I served on the Wyoming Supreme Court for 15 years, there were several or multiple decisions that were controversial, certainly to the parties before us. But I never had any suggestion, any email, anything from an individual citizen or a lawyer or anybody involved in the case.
I knew some were unhappy with us. But when you ask somebody to serve in that capacity to resolve the disputes in our society, there are always two parties in the case or there is no case. So if you don't respect the decision and go about your business and do what you have to do with that ruling, it really does weaken and threaten the structure of our government, both state and federal.
KK: Right. That respect for the judiciary has kind of been expected.
MK: Exactly. We had always, not so much as a joke, but commented that we, judges in general, the judiciary, is the weakest branch of government.
We can't raise an army and we can't raise taxes. All we can do is make decisions. Not only do our rights depend on that, our constitutional rights, but the stability of our society and our commerce and individual lives of people, depend upon the fact that there is a referee at the end of a dispute. We might be mad at the referee for a while. But if we don't have a referee, we can't have a society. We can't have a basketball game, we can't have a football game. Our Founding Fathers knew that was important and established the judicial branch, which is simply doing its job.
KK: So this letter was sent at the end of March and you asked Senators Cynthia Lummis and John Barrasso and Representative Harriet Hageman to publicly condemn these threats, affirm judicial independence and remind Americans that appeals, not intimidation or violence, are the constitutional remedy for a court ruling that they disagree with. What have you heard back?
MK: I personally haven't heard anything back. I have not heard that the main author has heard anything back. So I think it's been pretty quiet.
Editor's Note: Wyoming's D.C. delegation shared a letter of response on April 15. See below.
KK: What does that signal to you?
MK: I'm not sure. I'd like to think it doesn't signal that they disagree or they'd be arguing back.
KK: Are there any next steps that you and the other signers of the letters are thinking of taking?
MK: There's a lot of discussion. The signers of the letter are all lawyers and judges, retired or currently serving – no currently serving judge signed the letter. We're brainstorming what the next step would be. Some of this seems pretty esoteric to the public. What are these people arguing about? And it's important.
Frankly, civics education hasn't gotten the attention that it should have for decades. The civics education is the least funded in secondary education. I know that, I can't cite the source of that, but I know it's a reliable one.
KK: Is that in Wyoming or in the state? In the nation?
MK: I'm talking Wyoming. But I bet it's reflective of the rest of the country. It just hasn't gotten the attention that it should, and it's hard to teach. We are trying to figure out how to do that in a constructive way across the state, whether it's through informational meetings, whether it's working with the schools or professional organizations, to try to communicate the importance of this problem. We'll keep being a voice to try to lower the heat in the discussions regarding judicial decisions.
KK: Got it. So education, trying to educate people.
MK: It's education. It's slow and it's painful, but that's all we can see to do.
KK: Is there anything else you'd wanna mention?
MK: Well, I would like to say just to the citizens, that this is your problem. It's not the judge's problem. If you don't defend the independence of the judiciary and its role, then there's nobody to decide to dispute except the one that's louder and stronger and has more money, and that affects your life.
Congressional response
Sens. John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis and Rep. Harriet Hagemen released a joint statement on April 15, and also shared a letter in response to the former judges and lawyers who signed the initial request.
“The Supreme Court has consistently noted that political questions should be kept at arm’s length by the judiciary,” they wrote. “Unelected judges imposing their policy biases on our nation without democratic legitimacy are the root cause of today’s controversy. Our Constitution impels all members of the judicial branch to administer justice with impartiality. Congress is using the power granted to it under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to ensure courts fulfill their core mission of providing impartial justice based on the law, not narrow partisan preferences.”
In Wyoming, the governor appoints state court judges based on a shortlist of three names provided by a nominating commission. After their first year, judges must run in yes-no retention elections to remain on the court. A term for a justice on the state Supreme Court lasts eight years, six years for district court judges and four years for circuit courts.
They continued, "We recently co-sponsored legislation, including the Judicial Relief Clarification Act and the No Rogue Rulings Act—alongside dozens of our peers—to terminate use of nationwide injunctions. Legislation was also introduced in the previous Congress, under a previous administration. Similarly, legislation has been introduced to make forum shopping based on judges’ perceived policy preferences more difficult. These bills, introduced by both sides of the aisle, are clear evidence there is a crisis in the judiciary—and that it is time to fix this broken system."
