With political tensions continuing to escalate across the country and public confidence in government institutions confronting challenges, two federal judges visited Monmouth University to discuss the importance of judicial independence, civil discourse, and protecting the American judicial system.
On Wednesday, Oct. 14, Monmouth hosted “Public Trust in the Courts: Civil Discourse, the Rule of Law and an Independent Judiciary” at Pollak Theatre. The discussion was part of the University’s Leadership, Civility, and Common Ground in Politics and Public Service conversation series.
The conversation series was sponsored by Monmouth University’s Office of the President and co-sponsored by the University’s Pre-Law and Political Science Clubs.
The event included speakers U.S. District Judge Esther Salas and Senior U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan. New Jersey Democratic state Sen. Vin Gopal and former Republican state Sen. Joe Kyrillos moderated the discussion, while Monmouth University President Patrick F. Leahy delivered opening remarks.
Throughout the conversation, the judges addressed the increasing threats against members of the judiciary, the influence of social media and political rhetoric, and the complications of sustaining public belief in the courts.
Judge Sheridan, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2006 by former President George W. Bush, spoke about how the environment surrounding the judiciary has changed over the past several decades.
“I think the atmosphere and environment in the federal courts is much different than it was in the ‘80s,” Sheridan said.
Sheridan pointed to an increase in threats against federal judges, citing approximately 450 threats in 2022 and 567 in 2024. Sheridan explained that the growing number of threats creates concerns not only for the safety of judges but also for their ability to perform their duties independently.
“I think that the courts are suffering because of this threat level, and it impacts the judge’s ability to be independent, and to apply the rule of law, as we know it, to cases,” Sheridan said.
Judge Salas, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama in 2011 and became the first Latina district judge in New Jersey, shared similar concerns about the current state of the judiciary.
“I’m going to start by saying that I think we’ve seen a dramatic change, and I’m going to say that the judiciary is under attack,” Salas said.
Salas argued that the increasingly hostile language used by political leaders has contributed to an environment where judges face personal attacks and intimidation.
She emphasized that criticism of the judiciary is not limited to one political party, explaining that leaders on both sides have contributed to the decline in respectful political conversations.
“I think that we have lost the ability to talk about people in a civil way,” Salas said.
For Salas, the issue of judicial safety is deeply personal.
In July 2020, her 20-year-old son, Daniel Anderl, was murdered at the family’s New Jersey home by a disgruntled attorney who targeted the judge. Her husband, Mark Anderl, was also seriously wounded in the attack.
During the discussion, Salas spoke about how her family’s tragedy changed her perspective on the responsibility judges have to speak publicly about threats against the judicial system.
She also described more recent incidents in which individuals have used her son’s name when sending unwanted food deliveries to judges as a form of intimidation.
Salas said these incidents demonstrate how threats can extend beyond the courtroom and affect judges’ families.
The discussion also assessed how social media has affected public opinions of the courts.
Salas explained that although the internet provides greater access to information, it has also created challenges in how people understand judicial decisions. Rather than reading full court opinions, individuals may form their views based on brief social media posts or political commentary.
She argued that judges can no longer rely entirely on their written decisions to explain the work of the judicial branch.
“I don’t think that we can sit back anymore and allow our opinions to just speak for themselves,” Salas said.
Sheridan extended a slightly different viewpoint, explaining that while public discourse about civility are valuable, judges must also maintain the traditional responsibility of allowing their rulings to stand on their own.
He recognized that judges do not always make the correct decision and that members of the public have every right to disagree with court rulings. However, he highlighted that disagreement should not turn into fear and intimidation tactics.
“We don’t make the correct decision all the time. And people generally have the right to express criticism about a ruling, if they feel it is unfair or not impartial,” Sheridan said.
He explained that judges commonly make decisions in cases where one side wins and another loses. Although disappointment and criticism are anticipated, personal attacks can create crises that extend far beyond an individual judicial case.
Sheridan believes that protecting judges also means defending the equality of the entire judicial system. “The only way our system works is if the judges are independent and society grants or wants them to have that judicial independence so they can make fair and impartial decisions,” Sheridan said.
The judges also addressed political outrage directed at the courts, including comments made by President Donald Trump and efforts made by legislators to dispute judges over controversial decisions. Salas directed concerns of political leaders who publicly attack judges can manipulate how others view the judicial system. She also condemned efforts to pursue impeachment against judges because of disagreements over their rulings.
Both judges accentuated the importance of preserving a judiciary system capable of making decisions without political pressure or fear of retaliation.
In addition to the moderated conversation, Salas and Sheridan took questions from the audience, allowing attendees to engage directly with the judges and learn more about the challenges facing the judicial system.
Salas also reflected on how Americans can begin restoring respectful discussions, emphasizing that civility does not start with elected officials alone.
She encouraged individuals to consider how they communicate with family members, neighbors, and others who may hold different opinions.
“I think, at a certain point, it starts at the kitchen table,” Salas said.
Even with her concerns about the current political environment, Salas spoke on her optimism that Americans can rebuild respect for one another and strengthen public confidence in their institutions.
“I think we’re capable of coming back from this. I know we’re capable of coming back from this, but it’s going to take all of us,” said Salas.
