May 12, 2025 Story by: Publisher
Federal judges in at least seven states have reported receiving unsolicited pizza deliveries at their homes—a disturbing trend they view as an attempt to threaten and intimidate the judiciary amid high-profile legal battles involving the Trump administration.
Since February, the U.S. Marshals Service has been tracking “hundreds” of these anonymous orders, which often arrive under false names and from multiple vendors and delivery apps. Some deliveries have even been placed in the name of relatives, echoing the tragedy of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas’s 2020 loss, when her son Daniel Anderl was killed by a disgruntled attorney posing as a delivery person.
Circuit Judge J. Michelle Childs of the D.C. Circuit has personally received seven such pizzas at her home after ruling against the administration in a lawsuit over the firing of an independent watchdog. “It’s really an unnecessary and unfortunate threat to our security,” she told The Washington Post. Childs, president of the Federal Judges Association, and other jurists have dutifully reported each incident to the Marshals Service, emphasizing that these deliveries undermine judicial independence and public confidence in the courts.
A memorandum circulated in March by the Southern District of New York’s Marshal’s office warned local judges of the pattern, noting its apparent link to politically sensitive cases. Chief Justice John Roberts had already flagged an uptick in judicial harassment—ranging from online disinformation to direct threats—in his year-end report last December.
Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin has called on the Justice Department and the FBI to launch a formal investigation. In a May 2025 letter, Durbin demanded updates on suspect identification, prosecutions, and coordination efforts by May 20, warning that these deliveries convey “that those seeking to intimidate the targeted judge know the judge’s address or their family members’ addresses.”
Legal experts liken the unsolicited pizzas to “swatting”—the dangerous practice of prompting armed law enforcement to respond to a fabricated emergency.
Former federal appeals court Judge Paul Redmond Michel, now part of the Article III Coalition of former jurists, warned that judges must feel secure enough to rule without fearing violent reprisals. “We know from the January 6, 2021, rioters that there are people out there who are perfectly prepared to be extremely violent,” he said.
As more judges share their experiences and law-enforcement agencies ramp up their inquiries, the judiciary is grappling with a new form of psychological warfare—one that weaponizes everyday services to sow fear and inhibit impartial decision-making.
Source: The Washington Post
