Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sat down with Fox News Digital and delivered a blunt message about the rising tide of threats against federal judges: "Violence is never the answer."
The interview marked a rare public statement from Gorsuch on the security climate surrounding the judiciary, a climate that reached its most alarming point on June 8, 2022, when a man traveled across the country to the Maryland home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh with a gun, ammunition, zip ties, duct tape, a tactical knife, a hammer, a crowbar, and lock-pick tools, all with the stated intent of killing a sitting Supreme Court justice.
Gorsuch's comments come at a moment when the Court faces not just physical danger but institutional pressure, from leaked internal deliberations to organized protests outside justices' homes to open calls from elected officials to delegitimize the bench. His message was clear: disagreement is fine, but the republic depends on the ability to argue without descending into intimidation.
The 2022 attempt on Kavanaugh's life deserves more attention than it has received. Nicholas John Roske, from Simi Valley, California, flew to the Washington, D.C., area with a firearm and ammunition packed in a checked suitcase. He arrived at Kavanaugh's home during the lead-up to the Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the case that ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade.
Roske told a 911 dispatcher he had homicidal and suicidal thoughts and had traveled from California to kill a Supreme Court justice. The Department of Justice later reported that authorities found the gun, tactical knife, zip ties, duct tape, hammer, crowbar, lock-pick tools, and other items in his possession. Before the incident, Roske had searched online for information about how to harm people, including the query, "Does twisting or dragging a knife cause more damage."
He walked away from the home only after spotting deputy U.S. Marshals stationed outside. He then called 911 himself. Roske was eventually sentenced to eight years in prison and a lifetime of supervised release for the assassination attempt.
Eight years. For plotting to murder a Supreme Court justice in order to, by his own account, affect the outcome of a pending case. That sentence should trouble anyone who believes the rule of law depends on judges being free to decide cases without fear of retribution.
The interview ranged beyond physical threats. Gorsuch addressed the damage done by leaks of the Court's internal deliberations, a subject that has festered since the unprecedented 2022 leak of the draft Dobbs opinion and, as Fox News Digital noted, more recent leaks of confidential Supreme Court memos exchanged by justices in 2016.
Gorsuch framed the issue in terms the Founders would have recognized. He told Fox News Digital:
"There's a balance between transparency on the one hand... and confidentiality in our deliberations. You can read every word I think about a case at the end of the day.... But do we need some confidentiality? Of course."
He pointed to the Constitutional Convention itself as precedent. The framers, Gorsuch said, "thought it was very important that they lock the doors when they were discussing the Constitution." James Madison, he noted, later believed there "would have been no Constitution" without that privacy.
The logic is straightforward. Justices who know their preliminary thoughts will be leaked to the press, and from there weaponized by activists, will stop speaking candidly at the conference table. The deliberative process breaks down. And the Court's ability to reach well-reasoned decisions suffers. Gorsuch has previously called for candid internal conversations at the Court, making this a consistent theme in his public remarks.
At the same time, Gorsuch praised the transparency the Court does offer. "It's wonderful, I think, that we have the opportunity for people to listen in to our own arguments," he said. "You can listen to every word uttered in arguments from the bench today, in real time."
The distinction matters. The public gets full access to oral arguments and written opinions. What it does not get, and should not get, is a live feed of justices hashing out their reasoning in private. That is not secrecy. It is the basic condition for honest deliberation in any institution.
Gorsuch also defended the structural independence of the judiciary, a principle that has come under sustained attack from politicians who treat unfavorable rulings as evidence of corruption rather than disagreement.
"Why do we have an independent judiciary? The framers did not want [judges beholden to political forces].... They said you have to have independent judges so that when you come to court, no matter how unpopular you are, you're going to get fair, neutral application of the law."
That principle has been tested from multiple directions. AP News has reported that Gorsuch previously told senators that attacks on the judiciary were "disheartening" and "demoralizing." Senator Ben Sasse said at the time that Gorsuch was passionate in arguing that an attack on any judge "is an attack on all judges."
The broader pattern is unmistakable. When the Court issues rulings that displease one political faction, the response is not reasoned critique but institutional delegitimization. Some Democratic members of Congress have openly branded the Court "illegitimate", rhetoric that has drawn sharp pushback from those who understand where that road leads.
Gorsuch drew a contrast between the American system and its alternatives. "You think about how robust our system is, where everybody, all factions come into making laws," he said. "That makes our decisions wiser than you are ever gonna get in a dictatorship or a monarchy or an oligarchy. They're much more fragile, aren't they?"
The point lands harder when you consider the alternative. Countries where judges answer to political masters do not produce fairer outcomes. They produce compliant ones. The entire architecture of American constitutional government rests on the premise that courts will apply the law without regard to which party controls the other branches.
Gorsuch closed with a personal note about his colleagues on the bench. "When I sit around the table with my colleagues, and we disagree, the one thing I know is that the person across from me loves this country... as much as I do," he said.
"We can debate, we can disagree. But we have to be able to do it in a way that respects one another."
That sentiment may sound unremarkable. It shouldn't. The fact that a sitting Supreme Court justice feels the need to publicly affirm that disagreement should not lead to violence tells you something about the state of American civic life. Chief Justice Roberts has issued similar warnings about personal attacks on judges as threats to the judiciary have spiked in recent years.
The 2022 leak of the Dobbs draft did not just compromise the Court's deliberative process. It lit a match. Protests materialized outside justices' homes. The attempted assassination of Kavanaugh followed weeks later. And the political class, with notable exceptions, treated the whole episode as background noise rather than the constitutional emergency it was.
Meanwhile, Gorsuch has continued to stake out forceful positions on the bench. He recently used a tariff ruling to challenge fellow justices on the major questions doctrine, demonstrating that his commitment to judicial independence is not just rhetorical but substantive.
The internal tensions on the Court are real. Disagreements among the justices sometimes spill into sharp written exchanges, as when Justice Alito rebuked Justice Jackson's partisanship charge in a recent case. But those disagreements, however pointed, play out within the constitutional framework. They are arguments about law, not threats to personal safety.
Gorsuch's interview raises a question that goes beyond the Court itself. A man traveled across the country with weapons and a plan to assassinate a justice, and received eight years. Protesters surrounded justices' homes in violation of federal law, and faced no meaningful consequences. Internal deliberations were leaked to the press in an apparent effort to mobilize political pressure on the justices before a ruling, and no one was held publicly accountable.
At every turn, the message sent to those who would intimidate the judiciary has been the same: the consequences will be mild.
Gorsuch said, "We have to be able to hear one another." That is true. But hearing one another requires something more basic: the assurance that speaking honestly will not make you a target. The framers understood this when they locked the doors of the Constitutional Convention. The question is whether the political class of 2026 still does.
When a republic stops protecting the independence of its judges, it does not get better judges. It gets judges who know which way the mob is leaning, and rule accordingly.