Charlie Kirk’s assassination has reignited worries about judges’ security. 

A sharp rise in threats against the judiciary has made concern over political violence a constant drumbeat, from state courts to the Supreme Court. 

But the fatal shooting of the prominent conservative activist has injected a new urgency into the conversation. 

“I think it is a sign of a culture that has, where political discourse has soured beyond control and something that we need to really pull back,” Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt Monday. 

Most immediately, Kirk’s assassination has added a layer the ongoing funding battle in Congress as a Sept. 30 deadline approaches. 

House Republicans unveiled the text of a stopgap package Tuesday to keep the government funded through Nov. 21. It adds $28 million for the Supreme Court to protect the justices and $30 million to the U.S. Marshals Service. 

It comes after the White House asked Congress to include additional security funding for the executive and judicial branches in a stopgap package. 

However, the boost leaves unaddressed broader funding issues, particularly for the security of lower judges, who don’t normally receive around-the-clock details. 

More than 500 threats have been reported against federal judges since last October, surpassing previous years, according to recently released data from the Marshals Service. 

“It’s clearly a brave new world when it comes to security, judges included,” said U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, chair of the U.S. Judicial Conference’s executive committee. 

The conference serves as the federal judiciary’s policymaking arm and comprises judges from across the country. Sutton spoke to reporters after the conference’s biannual meeting Tuesday, at which judges were warned that the judiciary’s budget crisis could deepen without a full-year appropriations deal in Congress. 

U.S. Circuit Judge Amy St. Eve, the conference’s budget chair, said Congress had consulted the judiciary “a little bit ago” for its requests in the event of a stopgap measure. St. Eve said the judiciary requested additional security funding. 

Despite the additional funds, it’s the full-year appropriations bill in the House that contains the complete judiciary security request of $892 million. 

The judiciary has increasingly sounded the alarm about security amid the heightened threat environment. 

A disgruntled lawyer murdered the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas in New Jersey in 2020. Two years later, an armed man showed up outside Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home and said he wanted to kill the justice. And judges have also reported receiving pizzas ordered to their homes — oftentimes ordered in the name of Salas’s son, she said earlier this year. 

Just last week, prosecutors indicted a man for allegedly printing a 236-page manifesto at a public library in Minnesota titled, “How to Kill a Federal Judge,” one of the latest in a steady drumbeat of cases.  

FBI Director Kash Patel said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday that his agency had 35 open investigations into threats against the judiciary, 17 of those against federal judges. 

“We are working up those cases and referring to them to prosecution where we can meet the threshold for evidence,” Patel told Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) 

Before the shooting, former federal judges had already been collaborating behind the scenes for months on a rare, joint statement warning that threats are endangering judges and their families. 

They agreed to release it on Constitution Day — today — only for Kirk’s assassination to reignite the national conversation days earlier. 

“Since 1787 our Constitution has stood firm. Now so must we all,” reads the letter signed by the 46 former judges, organized by the group Keep our Republic. 

We sat down with two of the signatories, one appointed by a Democratic president, the other a Republican president, to discuss. 

“I would never characterize any anything about what happened to Charlie Kirk yesterday as providing a lesson of some kind other than I hope it shakes enough people up to think and reflect on just the level of rhetoric that so many people are engaged in and toning it down. Turn down the rhetoric,” Philip Pro, who was appointed by former President Reagan and heard cases on Nevada’s federal district court until 2015, told us. 

Pro recalled marshals living in motor homes outside his home on a “couple of occasions,” but he cautioned it was not like what judges see today. 

“We know we have in our society, people who are easily driven to action by political rhetoric, so that creates a danger for judges,” said Bob Cindrich, who former President Clinton appointed to a federal judgeship in Pennsylvania. Cindrich resigned from the bench in 2004. 

“But in the end, the biggest threat to the future of the Republic is none of that,” Cindrich said. “It is we, the people. It is apathy.” 

As the broader conversation moves forward in the judiciary, an update on the prosecution of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in Kirk’s shooting: 

• Robinson, 22, was hit with seven charges in Utah on Tuesday, including aggravated murder. His first court appearance was Tuesday afternoon.  

• New details about the alleged crimes emerged in the charging documents against Robinson, which you can read here.  

• Utah County Attorney General Jeff Gray said prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty, a decision he made “independently” despite being aware of Trump’s desire to see capital punishment pursued.  

Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill’s weekly courts newsletter from Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. Reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) or Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48).  

IN FOCUS

Ghana deportations spur rocket docket 

A sudden round of deportations to Ghana left U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan racing against the rapid speed of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, requiring lawyers to work through the weekend. 

After emergency hearings Friday and Saturday and near-nonstop written briefing, Chutkan handed down her ruling Monday night.  

The judge found she had no power to intervene, even as she expressed concerns over the administration’s conduct. 

“The court does not reach this conclusion lightly,” Chutkan wrote.  

“It is aware of the dire consequences Plaintiffs face if they are repatriated,” she continued. “And it is alarmed and dismayed by the circumstances under which these removals are being carried out, especially in light of the government’s cavalier acceptance of Plaintiffs’ ultimate transfer to countries where they face torture and persecution. But its hands are tied.” 

The battle emerged after Ghana agreed to take in migrants who have no ties there, accepting 14 West Africans on deportation flights from the United States this month. 

On Friday, five of the deported migrants sued over concerns Ghanian officials were working to swiftly send them to their home countries of Nigeria and Gambia. One of the plaintiffs had already been moved. 

Immigration judges had prevented U.S. officials from deporting all five to their home countries over fears they’d face persecution, torture or death. The migrants accused the Trump administration of using Ghana to end-run those protections. 

The Justice Department insisted the deportations were legal, pointing to the Supreme Court’s emergency ruling that enabled the administration to quickly deport migrants to countries where they have no ties. 

The government also argued it no longer had any power since the migrants were in the hands of the Ghanian government, successfully convincing Chutkan she couldn’t step in. 

“Defendants’ actions in this case appear to be taken in disregard of or despite its obligations to provide individuals present in the United States with due process and to treat even those who are subject to removal humanely,” Chutkan wrote. 

“These actions also appear to be part of a pattern and widespread effort to evade the government’s legal obligations by doing indirectly what it cannot do directly.” 

It’s the latest instance of judges racing to respond to allegations that the Trump administration was attempting to deport migrants with little notice or in violation of immigration rulings. 

In March, attorneys for Kilmar Abrego Garcia sued after the administration mistakenly deported him to El Salvador despite an immigration ruling protecting him from removal there. Months later, Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. to face criminal human smuggling charges. The administration says he is an MS-13 gang member, a charge Abrego Garcia denies. 

In April, attorneys for a group of Venezuelan migrants the administration says also are gang members rushed to court as the administration bused them to a Texas airport to be deported. The Supreme Court intervened in the middle of the night to temporarily block the flight, though the challenge remains ongoing. 

This summer, an appeals court ordered the administration facilitate the return of a man deported to El Salvador about 30 minutes after the court paused his removal order. 

And more recently, unaccompanied minors from Guatemala sued in late August as the administration looked to deport them. The administration says it is acting legally and reunifying the children with their parents, but the minors’ attorneys have contested those assertions. The on-duty emergency judge temporarily blocked the deportations, but the case is now proceeding before a different judge. 

TikTok deal in sight puts saga in perspective 

It seemed like TikTok’s time was running out. 

But on Monday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said an agreement that would let the shortform video app remain on U.S. networks and app stores was all-but official. 

“We have a framework for a TikTok deal,” he said at a press conference.  

The announcement came as the U.S. and China were barreling toward a Wednesday deadline, when Trump’s latest extension delaying the enforcement of a law passed last year requiring TikTok’s Beijing-based parent company, ByteDance, to divest from the app or face a ban was set to expire. Trump extended that deadline three months on Tuesday. 

If the deal stands up, it could cement the shortform video app’s place in American culture after years of driving the national zeitgeist. 

That’s despite the national security concerns that spurred bipartisan majorities in Congress to act, President Biden to sign the law and the Supreme Court to unanimously uphold it. 

With that in mind, we at The Gavel have one lingering question: Did any of it matter? 

The TikTok saga is one of the clearest examples in recent memory of the government operating as it was designed to. 

Lawmakers from both parties teamed up to address a national concern, and a president swiftly signed it into law. TikTok turned to the legal system to challenge that law. And, after moving through the courts, the justices returned a final say.  

But then, nothing changed. And in all the months since, no one ever tried to challenge the legality of the Trump administration declining to enforce the law — even as hundreds of legal challenges mounted to practically every other facet of his sweeping second-term agenda. 

Even Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is engaging with the platform. She filmed a TikTok last week for late-night host Stephen Colbert’s show. The court did not return a request for comment on whether she had any concerns.  

As concern over TikTok mounted in 2022, FBI Director Christopher Wray warned that the China-owned app’s booming success could mean Chinese officials could manipulate the app’s algorithm for covert influence operations, unbeknownst to its millions of users.  

Months later, the White House ordered federal agencies to ensure TikTok was deleted from all government-issued phones over concerns that ByteDance could share user data from the app with the Chinese government.  

After the law was passed in 2024, TikTok took its legal challenge all the way to the Supreme Court, which unanimously upheld the law in holding its risk to national security outweighed concerns about free speech.   

TikTok went dark for a few hours in January, when the law was set to take effect.  

But then, the lights turned back on. 

The Biden administration, on its way out of the White House, said it would not enforce the ban and Trump has, several times now, extended an order halting the ban as he’s sought to strike a deal. And politicians from both parties continue to use the app, despite the espoused risks.  

You might remember from an earlier edition of The Gavel that two former Supreme Court solicitors’ generals were equally confused. Ex-Solicitors Generals Paul Clement and Elizabeth Prelogar noted at a judicial conference last month that the statute was defended in part on the basis that national security made it imperative to act.  

“But then the national security imperative, I guess, wasn’t quite as imperative,” said Clement, who served during the younger President Bush’s second term. 

The Supreme Court advocates suggested that the lassiez-faire approach to TikTok could come back to bite the Trump administration in its efforts to defend itself in court by pointing to national security. 

Though the TikTok saga may be coming to an end, those cases are still working their way through the courts. 

Bessent noted Monday that Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are set to speak Friday to finalize the deal, declining to discuss the “commercial terms” of the agreement between “two private parties” but emphasizing they “have been agreed upon.” 

Trump hinted at the news, too, writing on Truth Social that a deal was reached on a “‘certain’ company” he said young people “very much wanted to save.” 

“They will be very happy!” he surmised.  

SIDEBAR

5 top docket updates       

1. Fani Willis’ Trump prosecution ends: The Georgia Supreme Court discarded Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ (D) final remaining pathway to criminally prosecute Trump and his allies. The court kept intact a ruling disqualifying Willis over her romance with a top prosecutor. 

2. Menendez’s wife sentenced: Nadine Menendez, the wife of former Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), was sentenced to 4.5 years in prison Thursday for her role in a scheme to trade her husband’s political power for lavish bribes.   

3. Trump sues NYT: Trump sued The New York Times and four of its reporters late Monday, the president’s latest defamation lawsuit against prominent media companies. 

4. Comey sues: Maurene Comey sued Monday over her firing as a federal prosecutor in New York, tying it to Trump’s long-standing feud with her father, former FBI Director James Comey. The younger Comey had worked on Jeffrey Epstein’s and Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal cases. 

5. SCOTUS rules against South Carolina: The Supreme Court denied South Carolina’s emergency appeal Wednesday seeking to enforce its transgender bathroom ban in schools against a transgender boy in 9^th grade. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch voted in South Carolina’s favor. 

In other news     

• Judge’s Kirk post draws backlash: A municipal judge in Ohio is facing backlash for social media posts seemingly applauding Kirk’s assassination, FOX19 in Cincinnati reports. The Joe Burrow Foundation announced it terminated the judge from its advisory board.  

• MySupreme Court case: In an essay for Slate, the software developer who sued MyPillow founder Mike Lindell after entering a challenge to disprove his 2020 election fraud claims argued his case for why the Supreme Court should reconsider a decision to overturn the $5 million judgment he won in a lower court.  

• Prelogar back at SCOTUS: The Supreme Court on Thursday docketed the first petition filed by Elizabeth Prelogar, the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, since she returned to her law firm, Cooley. Prelogar is representing local residents in their challenge to Llano County, Texas’s decision to remove 17 books from public library shelves because of their ideas about race and sexuality. 

• Is It Over Now? A federal judge in Manhattan rejected a request by actor Justin Baldoni to extend a deadline to depose Taylor Swift in his legal battle with “It Ends With Us” co-star Blake Lively. 

• Ear piercing in court: Kirkland & Ellis bankruptcy partner Joshua Sussberg made good on his promise to a Delaware judge that he would get his ear pierced if he could find a buyer for Claire’s, the teen retailer that filed for bankruptcy a second time last month. The National Law Journal has a photo. 

PETITION PILE

Petitions to take up cases that the justices are keeping a close eye on.  

Last week, we previewed the first batch of notable petitions the justice will consider taking up at their first conference of the new term, which is known as the “long conference” because it involves such a massive pileup of cases filed over the summer. 

This week, we’ll focus on petitions involving major companies or the First Amendment. 

Petitions involving major companies: 

• NBA: In National Basketball Association v. Salazar, the NBA wants the Supreme Court to end a lawsuit filed by an individual who alleges the league unlawfully disclosed his video viewing history on the NBA’s website to Meta. 

• Uber: In Uber Technologies v. Drammeh, the ride-sharing service seeks to end a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the estate of an Uber driver murdered by two riders in a failed carjacking attempt. The case could have wide-ranging impacts: Uber told the court it should use the dispute to provide guidance on its 1938 decision, Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, a foundational case commonly taught in civil procedure classes. 

• Laura Loomer and Meta: In Loomer v. Zuckerberg, far-right activist Laura Loomer wants the Supreme Court to revive her racketeering lawsuit against Meta and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, X and its former CEO Jack Dorsey and Procter & Gamble. Loomer alleges the companies unlawfully suppressed conservative political speech, but lower courts tossed the lawsuit.  

• Section 230: Meta is also defending against an appeal brought by the daughter of the senior pastor killed in the 2015 Charleston church mass shooting.  The suit alleges Meta is liable for showing the shooter inflammatory and white supremacist content. In In M.P. v. Meta Platforms, the daughter is urging the justices to use the appeal to rein in Meta’s Section 230 legal immunity. Separately in Doe v. Grindr, a boy with autism who was raped at age 15 after using Grindr is seeking to revive his lawsuit against the gay dating app that was dismissed under Section 230.  

• Manhattan Project waste: Two companies are appealing a ruling favoring two sisters in their pursuit of damages over allegations that radioactive waste exposure from the Manhattan Project caused them to develop cancer. In Cotter Corporation v. Mazzocchio, Cotter and the Commonwealth Edison Company want the justices to delve into whether federal or state rules should dictate the liability standard in lawsuits over nuclear incidents.  

• Ticketmaster: In Live Nation Entertainment v. Heckman, the parent of Ticketmaster is asking the Supreme Court to bless the company’s arbitration procedures that are designed to handle the bombardment of claims it receives from customers. A lower court decided federal law does not protect Ticketmaster’s “mass arbitration” arrangement, and the company now wants the high court to overrule it. 

• Cuba cruises: In June, we covered that the Supreme Court asked for the Trump administration’s views on whether it should review a ruling that tossed a $400+ million combined judgment against four major cruise lines for violating the LIBERTAD Act by having “trafficked in stolen property” by using docks in Havana, Cuba. The administration’s answer? Yes. In addition to Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, they also want the justices to take up similar issues in Exxon’s lawsuit against Cuban energy companies, Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Corporación Cimex. 

• Crocs: In Crocs v. Double Diamond Distribution, shoe-maker Crocs is urging the Supreme Court to toss claims it violated the Lanham Act by making false advertisements about its patents. The maker of Dawgs shoes brought the allegations as a counterclaim after Crocs hit the company with a patent infringement lawsuit. 

Petitions implicating the First Amendment: 

• Judicial Watch’s election content: In Judicial Watch v. Weber, the conservative watchdog is suing California’s secretary of state for investigating the group in accordance with a state election law requiring the mitigation of “false or misleading” election content online. The state worked with YouTube to remove one of Judicial Watch’s videos in the lead-up to the 2020 election. The group contends the steps amount to retaliation that violates the First Amendment, but lower courts tossed the case. 

• Project Veritas: In Project Veritas v. Vasquez, the conservative group known for undercover recordings wants the justices to strike down an Oregon law that prohibits recording unless all parties are notified. Project Veritas contends lower courts used too lenient a test in upholding the law. 

• Louis Farrakhan: Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam are seeking to revive their $4.8 billion First Amendment and defamation lawsuit against the Anti-Defamation League, CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and its associate dean for calling Farrakhan antisemitic. A lower court said the statements were opinion that can’t be deemed defamation, and Farrakhan had no standing to bring his First Amendment claim. The case is Farrakhan v. Anti-Defamation League. 

ON THE DOCKET

Don’t be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here’s what we’re watching for now:   

Today:  

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit is set to hear oral arguments in four Blackfeet Nation members’ appeal of an order transferring their challenge to Trump’s tariffs on Canada from a federal court in Montana to the U.S. Court of International Trade. 

• A federal judge in Wisconsin is set to hold a hearing in the criminal case of Hannah Dugan, the state judge accused of helping a migrant evade arrest by federal immigration agents. 

• A federal judge in Montana is set to hold the second day of a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to Trump’s Unleashing American Energy and Declaring a National Energy Emergency executive orders, brought by 22 young people. 

Thursday:  

• A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a hearing on a motion to expedite discovery in the district’s challenge to the deployment of National Guard troops throughout the city amid Trump’s crackdown on crime.   

Friday:  

• The Trump administration is due to submit its written brief defending the president’s tariffs before the Supreme Court. 

Monday:  

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is set to hear oral arguments in Kari Lake’s appeal of a judge’s order blocking the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for Global Media. 

• A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a hearing over the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss American Oversight’s lawsuit against five cabinet members who shared plans to bomb Yemen in a Signal group chat that accidently included the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic.  

Tuesday:  

• A federal judge in California is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit challenging conditions on federal grant funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation and other agencies, brought by seven local jurisdictions. 

• Another federal judge in California is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit brought by 20 Democratic state attorneys general against the Department of Health and Human Services for turning over the states’ Medicaid data to other agencies.  

WHAT WE’RE READING

1. Politico’s Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney: Appeals court judges publicly admonish Supreme Court justices: ‘We’re out here flailing’ 

2. Bloomberg Tax’s Michael Rapoport: IRS Attorney Exodus Gives Companies a Leg Up in Court Cases 

3. WIRED’s David Gilbert: Extremist Groups Hated Charlie Kirk. They’re Using His Death to Radicalize Others 

4. The New York Times’s Adam Liptak: The Supreme Court’s Fast Track Needs a Name, and the Justices Are Split 

5. Politico’s Jessica Piper and Aaron Pellish: A desensitized America is moving on from political violence faster and faster