Judge Matthew Brann presides over the Middle District of Pennsylvania as Chief U.S. District Judge, far from Canada’s Atlantic coast provinces.
That didn’t stop an angry Maritimer from writing to berate the judge about one of his rulings.
“One lady in Nova Scotia, yes, absolutely irate,” Brann said. “If you’re a high court judge in Canada, you’re addressed as ‘My Lord.’ And she began the letter ‘My Lord,’ but then after that it was just scatological language.”
“I was very curious that my decision had affected some lady up in Nova Scotia — and of course it had not,” he said.
TUNE IN TO LEARN MORE
'Conversations for the Common Good: Safeguarding Justice Through Judicial Independence,' is scheduled to air Thursday, Nov. 6 at 7 p.m. on WVIA-TV.
The anecdote drew gentle chuckles when Brann recalled the incident during a WVIA panel discussion on judicial independence in the United States, but he quickly explained that such abuse is anything but funny — and how it is very much on the rise.
The U.S. Marshals Service logged 562 threats against federal judges in fiscal 2025, a trend Brann recently discussed with a retired deputy U.S. Marshal.
“He said 25 years ago you just never heard of these things — you know, very, very rare,” Brann said.
“There’s been a real breakdown in how, I think, we treat one another, in general, and I think that’s now extended to the judiciary,” he said.
The rising tide of hostility toward judges — federal, state, and local — was among key themes discussed during “Conversations for the Common Good: Safeguarding Justice Through Judicial Independence.” The hour-long forum is scheduled to air Thursday, Nov. 6 at 7 p.m. on WVIA-TV.
Brann was joined on the panel by Judge Joseph Saporito Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Judge Lesa Gelb of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas; and Judge Mary Jane Bowes of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The forum was moderated by Tracey Matisak.
'To protect the rule of law'
The discussion centered on "why judicial independence is critical to a well-functioning democracy, and how throughout our history, it has made our legal system the envy of the world," Matisak said.
But what does that mean?
Gelb described it as the importance of judges being independent in their opinions, adding that "the responsibility of judges is to protect individual rights and to and to protect rule of law."
"And we cannot do that unless we are independent, free of political pressure," Gelb said.
While Gelb and Bowes occupy elected judgeships, federal judges like Brann and Saporito are political appointees. They urged the public — and the news media — to understand that judges' political affiliation, and the affiliation of the presidents who appointed them, have no bearing on the judges' rulings.
Brann felt that news stories emphasizing which president nominates a judge can be misleading. He noted that he was appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.
"I'm a Republican ... an old-fashioned Republican," Brann said. "I was nominated by a Democratic president, with support of a Republican senator and a Democratic senator, and confirmed by the Senate by unanimous consent."
Similarly, Brann noted, Saporito also is a Republican but he was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden with the support of two Democratic senators.
"I think really the ideological considerations that might have governed, to some degree, our appointments really have nothing to do with the cases that we deal with, or how we approach those cases or try to resolve them," Brann said.
Judicial independence isn't just about being free from external influence. It's also about separating personal beliefs from what the law says, the panelists said.
"Judicial independence is not where a judge comes and just signs an order willy nilly what a judge wants to do," Saporito said. "I think the public needs to know, from the judge's perspective, what goes into the judicial decision-making process."
"I like to say that we are in the business of making informed decisions. We're informed by case precedent, by statutory law, and most importantly, we are guardians of the Constitution, and so therefore we take our role very seriously, and we don't just make decisions off the cuff," he said.
Safety concerns rising
Judges have always been subject to criticism for their rulings, the panelists said, but that criticism is increasingly crossing the line into verbal abuse, threats, and sometimes physical harm.
In 2020, an attorney disguised as a delivery driver opened fire at the home of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas in New Jersey. Salas' 20-year-old son was killed and her husband was seriously wounded.
Shortly before this panel discussion was recorded, a massive fire destroyed the home of South Carolina state Judge Diane Goodstein, injuring three people. While state agents said they initially found no evidence the fire was intentionally set, it factored into the conversation about how judges and those who protect them are on high alert.
Saporito recalled a case where a person acting as their own attorney took exception to one of his rulings and engaged in tirades on the docket, including statements directed at the judge.
"So I took that to the U.S. Marshal Service, and I'm immensely grateful to the United States Marshal Service and the protection that they provide to us. I met with one of the deputy marshals. He gave me a plan, and with that plan, it included the local police in the community in which I live," Saporito said.
"I worry about my wife and my children and my grandchildren, and so from that perspective, I felt that they approached it correctly," Saporito said.
Gelb described a similar experience in Luzerne County Court.
"I ruled against someone, and it goes before the appellate court, and the one of the questions [for the appeal] is, 'what law are you relying on?' And she said the Second Amendment."
The amendment sets out the constitutional right to bear arms.
"That was a bit off-putting," said Gelb, who considered the reference a veiled threat and reached out to law enforcement.
"We let our sheriffs know, and that's the kind of thing that we have to do," she said.
"I think all judges are thinking more and more about physical threats that can happen to them, and that really takes away from their ability to rule without fear or favor," Gelb said. "We want them to be able to hand out a decision even if they don't like it, even if it's going to be a difficult and unpopular decision."
As Bowes put it, those fears could make it harder to recruit for the bench.
"We don't want excellent attorneys to say to themselves, you know, 'I'd like to serve as a judge, but I don't want to put my family at risk. I have small children. I'm just not going to go there.' You know, that's another real threat to judicial independence when good people aren't stepping forward," she said.
And that bodes poorly for the nation's well-being, the panelists said.
"If you look at the countries that don't have judicial independence, we're looking at Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia — there's a theme here, and that's the other reason why, for a democracy that functions, you have to have an independent judiciary," Gelb said.
Matisak noted that the World Justice Project survey of 142 countries doesn't even rank the U.S. in the top 10 for its Rule of Law index.
"How concerning is that to you?" she asked Gelb.
"I think it's very concerning," Gelb said. "Our democracy should be a beacon to the whole world, and for us not to be in the top 10 is dismaying."
