Crime

Alaska Man Indicted for Sending Graphic Threats to Supreme Court Justices 2025

In a disturbing case that has raised concerns about the safety of the U.S. judiciary, an Alaska man, Panos Anastasiou, has been indicted for sending graphic threats to injure and kill six Supreme Court justices and some of their family members. The U.S. Department of Justice announced the charges on September 19, 2024, highlighting the severity of the threats and their potential to undermine judicial independence. This incident comes amid growing worries about violence and intimidation targeting federal judges, as noted by Chief Justice John Roberts in his year-end report. Below, we explore the details of the case, its broader implications, and what it means for the safety of the nation’s highest court.

The Case: Threats Against Supreme Court Justices

Panos Anastasiou, a resident of Alaska, faces serious federal charges for allegedly sending over 465 threatening messages to the Supreme Court between March 2023 and July 2024. According to the Department of Justice, these messages contained graphic and violent language, explicitly threatening to torture and kill six unnamed justices. While the indictment does not specify which justices were targeted, posts on X suggest the threats were likely aimed at the court’s conservative majority, including Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, among others. The Supreme Court currently has a 6-3 conservative majority, which has been a focal point of public and political scrutiny in recent years.

The threats were not limited to the justices themselves. Some messages also targeted family members, adding a deeply personal and alarming dimension to the case. Anastasiou faces nine counts of making threats against a federal judge and 13 counts of making threats in interstate commerce. If convicted, he could face significant prison time, with each count carrying a potential penalty of up to five or seven years, depending on the charge.

The Department of Justice stated that Anastasiou’s messages were sent through various means, including online platforms, and were deemed credible enough to warrant immediate investigation by federal authorities, including the FBI. The case underscores the growing challenge of addressing threats in the digital age, where social media and online communication can amplify dangerous rhetoric.

A Growing Threat to Judicial Safety

This case is part of a broader pattern of increasing threats against federal judges, as highlighted by Chief Justice John Roberts in his 2024 year-end report. Roberts warned that violence, intimidation, and disinformation targeting the judiciary are putting the rule of law at risk. He noted that over 1,000 serious threats against federal judges have been investigated in the past five years, with around 50 individuals criminally charged. The Alaska case is a stark example of this troubling trend.

The Supreme Court has faced heightened scrutiny in recent years due to controversial rulings on issues like abortion rights and presidential immunity. These decisions have provoked strong reactions, sometimes escalating into threats against justices. For instance, in 2022, an armed man was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home after threatening to assassinate him following the court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Similarly, Justice Amy Coney Barrett revealed she has worn a bulletproof vest due to safety concerns, though she did not disclose specific reasons.

Legal experts and former judges have expressed alarm over the rising hostility toward the judiciary. Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge and executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute, emphasized the need for stronger protections for judges, including stricter ethics codes and greater transparency to restore public trust. The U.S. Marshals Service, responsible for securing federal judges and courthouses, has been investigating these threats, but the scale of the problem continues to grow, fueled in part by polarized political rhetoric.

The Political Context

While the Department of Justice has not officially linked Anastasiou’s actions to a specific political motive, posts on X point to his history of donating to Democratic causes through ActBlue, a fundraising platform. Reports indicate he made at least 82 donations, suggesting a possible ideological basis for his threats. However, without official confirmation from authorities, these claims remain speculative. The case has sparked discussions on social media about the dangers of politically motivated rhetoric, with some users arguing that inflammatory language from both sides of the political spectrum can inspire such actions.

The Supreme Court’s recent rulings have placed it at the center of political debates, making justices targets for criticism and, in some cases, threats. For example, the court’s 2024 decision granting broad immunity to presidents for official acts was seen as a victory for President-elect Donald Trump, who has frequently criticized judges who rule against him. This ruling, penned by Chief Justice Roberts, removed legal obstacles to Trump’s 2024 election campaign, further intensifying public focus on the court.

Implications for Judicial Independence

The threats against Supreme Court justices raise serious questions about the independence of the judiciary, a cornerstone of American democracy. Chief Justice Roberts has repeatedly warned that intimidation and calls to defy court rulings undermine the rule of law. In his year-end report, he described four key threats: violence, intimidation, disinformation, and defiance of court judgments. The Alaska case touches on several of these, particularly the use of violent threats and the potential role of online disinformation in amplifying them.

Judicial independence ensures that judges can make decisions based on the law, free from external pressures. However, when justices face personal threats, their ability to remain impartial may be tested. Roberts has called for public engagement with the judiciary to foster a better-informed society, but he stressed that threats and harassment are “wholly unacceptable.” The arrest of Anastasiou sends a clear message that such behavior will face serious consequences, but it also highlights the need for broader efforts to protect judges and restore public confidence in the courts.

Public Reaction and Next Steps

The indictment has sparked varied reactions. On X, some users have framed the case as evidence of politically driven hostility toward conservative justices, while others argue it reflects broader societal tensions. The lack of clarity about which justices were targeted has fueled speculation, but authorities are likely withholding details to protect the individuals involved.

As the case moves forward, Anastasiou will face trial in federal court, where prosecutors will need to prove that his threats were credible and intended to intimidate. The outcome could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled, especially as threats against public officials become more common in a polarized climate. The Justice Department’s swift action in this case demonstrates its commitment to protecting the judiciary, but it also underscores the challenges of addressing online threats in real time.

What Can Be Done?

Addressing the rising tide of threats against judges requires a multi-faceted approach. First, law enforcement agencies like the FBI and U.S. Marshals Service need adequate resources to investigate and prevent such threats. Second, social media platforms must take responsibility for monitoring and removing threatening content, as online rhetoric can quickly escalate into real-world danger. Finally, public discourse around the judiciary must shift toward constructive criticism rather than personal attacks. Educational efforts to promote understanding of the court’s role could help reduce misinformation and hostility.

For now, the nation watches as the legal process unfolds in the Alaska case. The indictment of Panos Anastasiou is a sobering reminder of the challenges facing the U.S. judiciary in an era of heightened political division. As Chief Justice Roberts stated, “Violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats to defy court judgments undermine our Republic.” Protecting the safety and independence of the Supreme Court is not just a matter of law enforcement—it’s a vital step in preserving the democratic principles that define the United States.

Alaska Man Indicted for Sending Graphic Threats to Supreme Court Justices

Introduction

An Alaska man, Panos Anastasiou, has been indicted for sending over 465 graphic threats to injure and kill six Supreme Court justices and their family members. The case, announced by the U.S. Department of Justice on September 19, 2024, highlights growing concerns about judicial safety amid a rise in threats against federal judges.

Details of the Case

Defendant: Panos Anastasiou, an Alaska resident.
Charges: Nine counts of making threats against a federal judge and 13 counts of making threats in interstate commerce.
Actions: Sent over 465 threatening messages between March 2023 and July 2024, targeting six unnamed Supreme Court justices and some family members.
Context: The threats come amid heightened scrutiny of the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, though the indictment does not specify which justices were targeted.

Broader Implications

Judicial Safety: Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his 2024 year-end report that over 1,000 serious threats against federal judges have been investigated in the past five years, with 50 individuals charged.
Political Climate: The Supreme Court’s recent rulings on abortion, presidential immunity, and other issues have fueled public and political tensions, potentially contributing to such threats.
Public Reaction: Posts on X suggest Anastasiou’s threats may be linked to his Democratic donations, though this remains unconfirmed by authorities.

Next Steps

Anastasiou will face trial in federal court, with potential penalties of up to five or seven years per count if convicted.
The case underscores the need for stronger protections for judges, better monitoring of online threats, and efforts to reduce polarized rhetoric.

Conclusion

The indictment of Panos Anastasiou is a stark reminder of the challenges facing the U.S. judiciary. Protecting the Supreme Court’s independence and safety is crucial for upholding the rule of law in a divided nation.

Sources: