Neither Sword Nor Purse: A Symposium Recap
Recent tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary — and attempts to intimidate judges — have raised concerns about the state of the Rule of Law.
Joining the national conversation to constrain governmental overreach and safeguard accountability, UW Law convened a symposium, Neither Sword Nor Purse, on April 17-18, 2026. The event focused on a key pillar of the Rule of Law: an independent judiciary. It gathered prominent former judges, lawyers, journalists, scholars and civic leaders to discuss challenges facing the justice system.
“The onus is on us”
“Judges are supposed to be independent of political influence,” said the Hon. Robert H. Henry, a former federal judge and the inaugural Jurist-in-Residence for Rule of Law at UW Law. “It is vitally important that the legal system’s impartiality and independence, which go hand in hand, are protected and preserved.”
Henry jointly organized the symposium with Dean Tamara F. Lawson and retired professor Hugh Spitzer, a constitutional law specialist, to advocate for the judiciary. Sitting judges are constrained from speaking out publicly by judicial conduct codes. This leaves it to others to defend judicial independence and the Rule of Law.
“The framers of the Constitution were keenly aware of the difficulty of the judiciary to defend itself,” said Henry, invoking Alexander Hamilton’s famous description of the courts as possessing neither the sword (executive branch of government) nor the purse (legislative branch). “The onus is on us.”
In her opening remarks, Dean Lawson reinforced the call for shared responsibility.
“How do we bring together our leaders, our luminaries, our entire communities around the most pressing issue of our time?” she asked. “Conversation is essential.”
Bipartisan alarm
From the start, the organizers set out to bring together voices from across the political spectrum, believing that finding common ground matters in a polarized moment.
In a keynote titled “These Are the Times That Try Men’s Souls,” former judge, the Hon. J. Michael Luttig, issued a stark warning of a looming constitutional crisis unless Americans find the courage to resist the rise of demagoguery.
“The time of America’s testing has come,” Luttig said. “Our founders pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor for the nation. There’s no defense of the cowardice that is infusing America.”
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, echoed the warning. He cautioned that public indifference could have catastrophic consequences for American democracy.
A recent surge in threats against judges illustrates these concerns. According to the U.S. Marshals Service, there were 564 threats against federal judges in 2025 alone, with 275 already reported this year.
Several speakers, including former Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, shared unsettling personal experiences of threats directed at family members because of their public service. Abbie VanSickle, a Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times, emphasized the news media’s critical role in bringing such threats to public attention.
Focus on judges
Margaret Satterthwaite, a professor at NYU School of Law, said the symposium distinguished itself from other national conversations on the Rule of Law by its focus on judges.
“Having this frank discussion with judges about what it feels like to be at the center of this moment and how the judiciary is responding to being under attack is an enormous contribution of this symposium,” she said.
Satterthwaite, who serves as the United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, discussed strategies used by authoritarian regimes worldwide to undermine courts. Her panel, titled “Without Favor, Without Fear,” was moderated by UW Law professor Anita Ramasastry, faculty director of the Barer Institute for Leadership in Law and Global Development.
Weaponizing public discontent with the justice system, Satterthwaite explained, is a common authoritarian tactic. The observation underscored concerns about America’s vulnerability to authoritarian rule amid declining public trust in the justice system.
Communication, accountability and risk
A recurring theme was the need for better communication between the judiciary and the public. As courts have recently issued guidelines allowing judges more latitude to speak outside written opinions, panelists debated whether they should engage with social media to reach the public. Some worried this could blur lines of impartiality. Others argued that silence in the face of disinformation carries its own risks.
Ali Durran and Danielle Lee Tomson of the UW Center for an Informed Public contended that the judiciary should tell human-scale stories about how the Rule of Law operates in daily life, even if judges themselves remain constrained.
Kimberley Mueller of Duke Law’s Bolch Judicial Institute pointed to practical efforts such as media training that can help judges engage without compromising ethics.
Discussions of accountability extended to the Supreme Court. Panelists examined the increased use of the “shadow docket” — emergency rulings issued with limited explanation — and debated how such practices affect public perceptions of the court’s impartiality.
These discussions went straight to the conundrum at the heart of the symposium: How do we protect judicial independence when it is under attack from other branches of government? And how do we balance the justice system’s traditional institutional distance from outside influence with growing needs for transparency, accountability and public trust?
State courts and uneven risk
Speakers also emphasized that challenges are not uniform across the judiciary. Washington Supreme Court Chief Justice Debra Stephens pointed to infrastructure gaps, limited research capacity and chronic underfunding in the state’s courts. Threats are also uneven: Women judges and judges of color face disproportionately higher risks of harassment and assault. Stephens described initiatives implemented despite these challenges.
“We need coalitions with law enforcement, business and other sectors more than ever,” she said.
Across these differences, speakers agreed that judicial independence depends not only on judges but also on an informed public that understands what is at stake. They stressed the importance of renewed civic engagement, starting with K-12 education on the justice system.
Looking ahead
For Celine Calpo, a second-year law student at NYU and student advisor in the Legal Empowerment and Judicial Independence clinic, the conversations reframed a fundamental question.
“How do our guardians guard themselves — and why should we support those efforts?” she said.
Hugh Spitzer emphasized the urgency of continuing these conversations, grounding them in UW’s public mission.
“As part of a public university, we have a responsibility to educate the public on issues that affect the country,” he said. “This is an important issue — not just for judges and lawyers, but for everyone.”
Fittingly, the symposium closed with a panel titled “Our Lives, Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor,” which distilled many of the themes explored over the day and a half. The panel was moderated by Judge Henry, and it featured Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Judge Paul Grimm, Judge Michael Luttig, Judge Thomas Griffith and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal.
They spoke passionately about the need to discuss the threats to the judiciary across party lines, gave voice to the importance of improving civic awareness at all ages, and underscored the need to maintain momentum in support of the Rule of Law. From speaking out against capitulating to bullies to the need — “obligation,” many said — to reaffirm American legal ideals, the takeaway was clear: the independence of the judiciary is under threat, and it’s going to take a lot of work to preserve the Rule of Law.
Taking up the charge, the organizers plan to host another symposium next year.