If the pillars of democracy hold firm in these turbulent times, credit may largely be due to the resilience and unwavering commitment of federal district judges. Amidst the backdrop of the Society for the Rule of Law summit, three retired judges – Judge Paul Grimm, Judge Nancy Gertner, and Judge Michael Luttig – provided a sobering view of the judiciary's current trials. They depicted a bleak scenario where district judges, despite facing unprecedented challenges, continue to act as the last bastion against authoritarian shifts in governance.

Judge Grimm referred to their role as a critical "line in the sand," while Judge Gertner highlighted the district courts' extraordinary response to the nation's needs. The panel, moderated by Ben Wittes of *Lawfare*, conveyed a collective sentiment that these judges, though often operating on scant sleep and under significant threats, perform heroically under pressure.

The conversation turned grave when discussing the Department of Justice under Pam Bondi. Judge Luttig criticized the DOJ's approach as not only contemptuous of the rule of law and constitutional governance but also of the courts and judges themselves. "The arguments that are being made by the Department of Justice attorneys... are dripping with contempt," Luttig remarked, emphasizing the unprecedented nature of these challenges.

Further complicating the judiciary's role is the behavior of the Supreme Court, which has frequently utilized its shadow docket to pass rulings that lack thorough explanation or justification. This method, according to the panel, undermines the legitimacy of the Court and raises serious concerns about its commitment to reasoned judicial discourse.

The implications of such judicial handling are vast. District courts find themselves crafting detailed legal opinions in the dead of night, countering hasty government actions that often disregard previous commitments and legal norms. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court appears to sidestep robust legal debate, opting instead for brief, unsigned orders and leaving lower courts to interpret these minimal guidances.

The panel also touched on the concerning rise in violent threats against judges, a symptom of the heightened contentious political and social climate. Judge Grimm shared alarming specifics of threats judges have received, underscoring the personal risks they endure in upholding their oaths.

Despite these formidable challenges, the consensus among the judges was clear: the lower courts remain steadfast in their duty, honoring their commitment to the Constitution and the American public amidst a sea of adversity. Their continued resilience is a crucial bulwark protecting the very essence of American democracy at a time when it seems most vulnerable.