U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton, who sided with the U.S. Justice Department this week in a ruling against Arizona’s immigration bill, has been receiving threats since she issued her decision.
“She has been inundated,” said U.S. Marshal for Arizona David Gonzales, according to The Arizona Republic.
Gonzales described the judge as “tough as nails” and said he has been speaking with her daily. He indicated federal agents take the threats seriously, but said most of the hate mail came from people who were frustrated over her decision.
“About 99.9 percent of the inappropriate comments are people venting,” Gonzales said. “They are exercising their First Amendment rights, and a lot of it is perverted. But it’s that 0.1 percent that goes over the line that we are taking extra seriously.”
Gonzalez said that marshals would increase their security presence at the courthouse, but would not discuss specific security enhancements.
The U.S. Marshals Service has a policy of not commenting on protection details they may or may not have in place, said Jeff Carter, a spokesman for the Marshals Service.
The threats against Bolton fit into a wider nationwide pattern of increased threats against judges. Improper communications and threats to federal prosecutors and federal judges more than doubled during the mid-2000’s, according to an Office of the Inspector General report released earlier this year.
In an interview in May, U.S. Marshals Service Director John Clark said the increased number of threats against judges was related to the wide availability of information about judges and the publication of their decisions on the Internet.
“In today’s world, there are more individuals who are more prone to threatening judges. I think a lot of it has to do with the availability of information with the use of technology and the Internet. Individuals can find out more about particular cases and judges decisions. They can use Internet sources to find out more about the judge. So if someone is prone to want to threaten someone, there are a number of ways they can find material about a judge,” Clark said.
Clark said the U.S. Marshals has strengthened their already close relationship with the judiciary, and increased awareness about the importance of reporting any problems.
“Whenever I travel, I meet with chief judges and district judges and U.S. attorneys to make sure that they have my number, they know how to get a hold of me, and that we are available to them on short notice,” Clark said.
A federal judge has sided with the Justice Department on Arizona’s controversial immigration law, blocking key provisions of the legislation that were set to go into effect on Thursday.
Edwin Kneedler (file photo by Ryan J. Reilly / Main Justice).
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton issued a ruling granting the federal government’s request for a preliminary injunction, which will prevent police from questioning people about their immigration status.
Bolton’s ruling also blocked parts of the law which made it a crime to fail to apply for or carry registration papers and for illegal immigrants to seek or perform work, and a provision that authorized law enforcement officers to arrest a person if there was reason to believe they might be subject to deportation.
The ruling was a win for the Justice Department, which sent one of its top career officials to Arizona to represent the government in the case. Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, a former acting Solicitor General who has represented the government in more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court, argued on behalf of the Justice Department in the Arizona courtroom last week.
A Justice Department spokeswoman said in a statement that DOJ believes the court ruled correctly in preventing provisions of the law, known as SB1070, from taking effect.
“While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive,” spokeswoman Hannah August said. “States can and do play a role in cooperating with the federal government in its enforcement of the immigration laws, but they must do so within our constitutional framework.”
Te administration will “continue to work toward smarter and more effective enforcement of our laws while pressing for a comprehensive approach that provides true security and strengthens accountability and responsibility in our immigration system at the national level,” she added.
