President Donald Trump asked Congress last Wednesday to pass legislation that “cracks down on rogue judges.”

Trump has repeatedly blasted jurists who issue decisions he doesn’t like, even calling them “criminals” and “a disgrace to our nation.” But demanding that the legislative branch enact laws that punish the judiciary is a breathtaking breach of the president’s oath to support and defend the Constitution, which creates our three separate — and coequal — branches of government.

Trump’s recent attacks came after the Supreme Court struck down his tariffs, which he has used to wield economic power against foreign governments, last month. By a 6-3 majority, the Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize the president to impose tariffs, a power otherwise reserved for Congress. Among the justices joining the majority were two of Trump’s own appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

Of course, justices and judges are expected to decide cases objectively, based on the facts and the law, without regard to partisan politics or the wishes of the president who nominated them. But this notion seems foreign to Trump, with his transactional style of governing. Like a mob boss who expects blind loyalty in exchange for any favor, Trump said of Gorsuch and Barrett, “they sicken me.”

Disagreeing with a court’s decision is nothing new. Judges make difficult and consequential decisions every day, and one party to a dispute will always be disappointed with the outcome, sometimes deeply so. All Americans are free to disagree with a legal decision and even openly criticize it. But when we do, we already have legal recourse available.

Losing parties may appeal a lower court decision to a higher court. Even critics of the Supreme Court have lawful options for redress. Congress can enact what is called a “legislative fix,” revising statutes or passing new ones to work around or override an unpopular decision. When the Court decides a constitutional question, the founding document can be amended. It’s a difficult task, to be sure, as the founders intended it to be. But it has been successfully completed 27 times. What Trump is doing is different — his proposed legislation would target the judges themselves for punishment.

It seems likely that Trump knows he will not get his wish. Even a Congress that has been largely submissive during his second administration would surely not go so far as to retaliate against judges based on their case decisions, a move that would wreak havoc on the separation of powers. But the president’s public statements nonetheless risk the independence of the judiciary, an essential pillar of democracy.

By attacking judges and justices who rule against him, Trump is sending a message to the others: Rule my way or else you’ll be next. While one would hope that judges would make decisions based on facts and law and not on fear, they are human beings with families who must consider the very real danger they face in today’s political climate. If Trump’s words cause a judge to pull their punches in a written opinion or even to avoid thorny legal questions altogether by punting on difficult issues, the public will have lost an important check on abuses of executive power.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been a vocal critic of Trump’s aggressive tactics, and recently called personal attacks on judges “dangerous.” He said that while he welcomed scrutiny and debate about a court’s legal decisions, attacks on judges themselves have “got to stop.” While it is often impossible to directly connect the president’s language to criminal activity, we have seen a rise in threats to federal judges in recent years.

Trump’s rhetoric only adds fuel to the fire. The U.S. Marshals Service investigated threats against judges in 2024 and discovered that the number of incidents had more than doubled to 509 from three years earlier.The number of incidents appears to be escalating. The Marshals Service reports that for the first three months of 2026, it has investigated 241 threats to federal judges.

Roberts devoted his 2024 year-end report on the judiciary to the danger of growing threats against judges, writing that, “Violence, intimidation and defiance directed at judges because of their work undermine our Republic, and are wholly unacceptable.”

In demanding legislation to punish judges, it is the president who is going rogue.

____

This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Barbara McQuade is a professor at the University of Michigan Law school, a former U.S. attorney and author of the forthcoming book, "The Fix: Saving America from the Corruption of a Mob-Style Government."

©2026 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com/opinion. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.