- We've been called traitors.

We've been dehumanized.

I was subjected to death threats.

My wife was subjected to death threats.

My daughter was doxed by Elon Musk and Laura Loomer.

- Welcome to One on One.

I'm Ian Donnis.

It's not an easy time to be a federal judge in America.

Many face threats amid verbal attacks from the Trump administration and growing political tensions over the courts.

So what happens when the rule of law is confronted by this kind of stress?

John Jay McConnell Jr.

chief judge of US district court in Providence, joins us to discuss that and more.

(gentle music) John Jay McConnell Jr.

chief judge of US district court in Providence.

Welcome to One on One.

- Thank you for having me.

- Let's start with the hostile climate facing federal judges in America.

You've faced multiple death threats after hearing cases against the Trump administration.

Why do you keep working as a judge?

- I've talked a lot about the threats, but no one ever asked me why do I keep it up.

That's a good question, Ian.

It's my job.

It's our duty.

I swore an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of this country, and you take what comes with that.

We entered a sad period where many judges, not just myself, all over the country, faced death threats, faced harassment.

It's all been documented.

We can talk about it if you wanna whatnot, but it represented to the courts a real concern that the public that was reacting in this way perhaps wasn't as understanding of what the courts did and what their roles were in our system of government, such that they would act in a political way at us, or they would act in a threatening way, or they would attempt to intimidate us or whatnot.

I mean, we were subjected to, I was subjected to death threats.

My daughter, my wife was subjected to death threats.

My daughter was doxed by Elon Musk and Laura Loomer.

We had pizza deliveries done in the name of a child of a friend, judge who was murdered.

Most recently, I haven't told anyone this yet, but my homeowner's insurance was canceled because impeachment articles had been filed against me.

So the repercussions of this kind of activity are kind of far and wide and go to the heart of the role of the government.

- Let me ask you, do you think the Trump administration can or should be doing more to discourage or speak against this kind of harassment?

- Look, I think everyone in a position of power from the top on down has a responsibility to tap things down, to ease tension, to support the security of our judges and other elected officials.

And it begins at the top.

We have been, judges have been called all sorts of names.

We've been called traitors.

We've been called treasonous.

We've been called idiots.

We've been dehumanized from the top right on down.

And you can't help but think that that has contributed to the way a portion of the public has acted toward judges and hurts the legitimacy of the court system the way that we need it.

I mean when you have elected officials referring to courts and judges, particularly in that kind of mean-spirited, derogatory way, it fosters, I think the threats that we felt and the other elements of a judge's security.

- How has this affected how you look at your work as a judge?

- Substantively, it hasn't affected me at all.

Unfortunately, I needed marshal protection for a period.

Rhode Island, US Marshal service has been phenomenal, very supportive, very on top of things.

We all feel very blessed by our local Marshalls service.

But substantively, you take an oath, your North Star is the rule of law.

You follow that North Star, how it brings you.

It's unpleasant along the way, at least for the last few years, it's been unpleasant by it.

You take precautions to make sure your family is safe.

We've been fortunate too, with the passage of some federal and state judicial security bills that our PII, our personal identifying information.

We have programs to try to wipe it off the internet so that our security can be enhanced.

So we've been fortunate in that regard.

But you're constantly vigilant, but it really has no effect substantively on what we do.

- I think people of good faith can agree that these kinds of threats and harassment are awful and that no one working on behalf of the public should face this kind of thing.

Why have more elected officials not spoken out about this kind of thing, particularly after publicity about it?

60 Minutes reported how a number of your colleagues in the Federal bench, people who were formally identified as Democrats and Republicans have all faced this kind of vitriol.

- Yeah, there's been a good amount of support.

As I said, Congress passed the Daniel Anderl bill named after Judge Salas's son, who was murdered by a pro se litigant in New Jersey, which supported it.

We've gotten quite a bit of support locally.

Our elected officials have all been incredibly supportive.

When the threats were at their height, for me personally, I received calls from almost all of our statewide and federal officials offering whatever support they could give.

So we've seen it.

I think unfortunately the judiciary has been perceived by some through a political lens instead of the non-political nature of it in our system of government.

And so I think sometimes people's politics keep them from doing the right thing.

Once you view the judiciary through a political lens, then your politics plays out in how you react to it, as opposed to realizing as the third co-equal independent branch of government.

It is the non-political of the three.

- How has this affected your day-to-day life?

I imagine you've have had to boost your security to some degree.

- Yeah, I'm not gonna talk too much about that.

I feel safe, I feel protected.

I do what needs to be done.

I do what the marshals tell me to do.

But in terms of day-to-day judging, it doesn't affect it.

It had a real disheartening effect at first.

I mean, to be subjected to a barrage of people that threatened your life, that had disparaging things to say about your family members and whatnot.

Disheartening, sad, emotional, without a doubt, but never once did it get near substantively anything that we did.

- Has anyone been charged in any of the threats against you or other judges in Rhode Island?

- I don't know.

- And Shauna Adams famously said that we are a nation of laws, not of men.

If there's a fundamental understanding among many Americans about the role played by the judiciary, what does that mean for the rule of law?

- It's scary to be honest with you.

Ian, you know I've heard you talk about it in the past on other legal issues that the third branch of government, co-equal branch of government is set up such that our independence, our nonpolitical nature is what makes America form of government so great that the judiciary lives by the rule of law in this country.

And our system is set up so that we can follow the rule of law.

I'm appointed for life so that I don't have the day-to-day political concerns in how we make a decision.

We live under the saying that all who walk through our doors are equal.

And the beauty of the court system is that everyone who walks through our door, whether you're the president or whether you're a local nonprofit, that feels that the government has done them wrong, whether you're a big corporation or whether you're someone who's been injured by a toxic substance.

Before the law, the only branch of government, this is true of, you are absolutely equal and the law applies to you equally.

And that rule of law is what makes America so great that we follow that rule of law.

And when the public doesn't understand that and the public sees us through a political lens, then we lose our legitimacy.

And that's the scary part of all of this from a systemic viewpoint, from a governmental viewpoint, for those that care deeply as I do and many others do, about our American system of government, which is the best in the world.

- Let's shift gears and talk about some other topics.

Before becoming a federal judge in 2011, you were a big contributor to Democratic campaigns and a Democratic activist.

We now see in Rhode Island, how former house speaker Joe Shekarchi hopes to wind up on the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

As someone who's made the transition from partisan politics to a non-partisan judicial role, is there any advice you would offer Speaker Shekarchi if he's successful in his quest to be a Supreme Court Justice about how to leave partisan politics behind?

- The answer is no.

(both laughing) No, I would be glad to talk to him if he is fortunate enough to be nominated and confirmed certainly.

Because when you look at many of the giants in the judiciary, they've come through the political system.

And so it can be done, it's been done in the past, whether a person or whatnot is the right person for it, is for the other branches to decide.

But I think about Joe Weisberger, I think about my father-in-law, Don Shea.

I think about Bruce Elia and all people who came through the... Tom Kelleher for those old enough to remember that far back.

- And many state judges in Rhode Island, former lawmakers or legislative workers.

- Right.

Paul Satel, who I think we all believe has led our state court system so well.

So I don't think politics is a disqualifying factor.

Whether or not somebody meets current ethical rules to come through it, that's for the political branches to decide.

But certainly there is a way to transition once you raise your hand and swear to the Constitution and you make the rule of law your North Star as opposed to politics, your North Star.

- I don't know if you'll weigh in on this question, but I have to ask you-- - Then the answer's probably I won't.

(both laughing) - There's this debate about whether the revolving door law precludes former speaker Shekarchi from going to the Supreme Court direct from the legislature in 2020.

Former lawmaker, Erin Lynch Prata did argue that because the Supreme Court said judicial, excuse me, a constitutional position, the revolving door probation was not in effect.

Do you have an opinion on that, that you can share?

- Oh, I actually don't have one.

And if I did, I wouldn't share it.

No, I've not, I've never looked at that.

I know Justice Lynch Prata came through the process and I know her personally and professionally and know what a high quality Juris that she is.

But no, I don't have an opinion one way that I've just never looked at it, nor would it likely come before the federal courts.

- There's a clash involving one of your colleagues in US District Court Judge Melissa DuBose and a federal prosecutor who did not disclose that someone who was about to be sentenced by her and possibly released pending trial was facing a murder charge.

That prosecutor has apologized, but this conflict is kind of playing out.

What does this tell us about the relationship between the Federal bench and the US Justice Department these days?

- Well, I don't know.

I don't know if it tells us anything globally about it.

I think it tells us that our system is working, that the judge held what she did based on the rule of law and followed what she should have done there.

I think the disturbing thing to me, and I can't comment a lot about it, because that disciplinary issue is before the entire court now.

So putting that aside.

What I will say what's disheartening and hurts the system is when a federal agency like DHS and ICE.

- [Ian] Homeland Security.

- Homeland Security, thank you.

Would issue a press release that contained a known falsity about a judge, and that they would publicize that, they would put it out to the public, that the press would rely on that only to be found out that it was a known lie.

In this instance, DHS and ICE put out a press release saying that Judge DuBose released someone that she knew there was a warrant out for their murder.

That was a press release that they issued.

Now we find out that they issued it when they knew about it, and they told the prosecutor not to tell the judge.

- What does that tell you that that happened?

- That it's vitally important that our political branches of government are truthful to the judiciary that we operate as a judiciary based on facts, based on truth and based on the rule of law.

And that when you begin to not act in that fashion in a truthful fashion, in an upfront fashion, that bad happens.

And if it weren't corrected, the legitimacy of the court could have been at issue.

And to only find out that an entity put out a known falsity about one of our judges is disheartening and it shouldn't happen, and shame on them for doing it.

I'm not referring to the Department of Justice or anything they did, but the fact that they would issue a press release knowing that it was falsity is just wrong.

- Judge McConnell, we see how favorable views of the US Supreme Court have fallen near a historic low according to the Pew Research Center.

What's your explanation for that?

- Probably a couple.

One, I think a perspective needs to be told that isn't told about the judiciary, and that is the Supreme Court only deals with about 70 cases a year.

There are 10s of thousands of cases that reach the district court level.

That's the trial court level in our federal system.

That's where every case begins, and the majority of them end.

And day in and day out, district courts across the country are following the rule of law.

They're doing their job, they're being truth finders.

They're applying the law without fear or favor.

They're treating everyone that comes in equally.

And the vast majority of cases that are presented to us, whether they're individual cases or brought by the government or brought against the government, are dealt with in that fashion by our judiciary as it has for the last 200 plus years.

So the worst of the worst, the highest profile, the most controversial 70 cases get to the Supreme Court.

That are oftentimes of a political nature or of social consequence or whatnot.

And how the Supreme Court deals with those is such a microcosm that I think we failed to tell the story of the judiciary as a whole.

That regardless of what President appointed you, regardless of your political, your past political feeling, regardless of your viewpoint about the law, we've been doing the job of judging, treating everyone equal under the law for centuries.

And the system works.

It's the best one in the entire world.

People are discouraged, I think at courts looking at what the Supreme Court has done, one, because they perhaps have disagreed with very emotional or social issues that they've dealt with.

But, also there have been criticisms of the way that the Supreme Court operates on the so-called shadow docket or emergency docket.

Recently in the last few years, the amount of times they've issued substantive rulings on an emergency basis has increased dramatically when you just look at it historically.

And I think that kind of action, procedural action can hurt the legitimacy of courts, that are about equal protection under the law that are about due process, because everyone knows that process is properly.

- Let me ask you about that.

The Supreme Court has made some rulings recently about the Voting Rights Act that critics see as decimating the remnants of the Voting Rights Act, allowing changes in election already underway in Louisiana and another one possibly in Alabama with effects on outcomes of elections this year.

- Do you see politics at play in that?

- I don't because it's not my role to see politics in it.

My role as a district judge is to follow the rule of law and in our country and our system, the Supreme Court of the United States has the final word on that.

And whether I agree or disagree with it doesn't matter to me one bit as a judge.

What matters to me is ensuring that I follow that rule of law, treat everyone equal under that law, and offer them appropriate process.

So, no, it doesn't bother me as a judge.

The more they articulate their reasons, which is why I would like to see them do less on an emergency docket, the better it is for us to follow our North Star, which is the rule of law.

- You're wrapping up your seven-year term as chief judge of US district court in Providence.

What do you consider your most important case and what has been your most difficult decision to reach?

- Wow.

I didn't have any experience in criminal law before I took the bench.

And so I've actually become fascinated by criminal justice issues.

So I can think of many stories that would never be worthy of reporting of people that have come before me where we've dealt with them in an innovative way in the criminal justice system and change their life.

And by changing their life, made the public safer.

And so I think about the work that we've done toward reforming the criminal justice system.

We've added alternatives to sentencing.

We have just statistically looking at things.

We in Rhode Island sentence people to less time than the national average.

Yet at the same time, our recidivism rate is one of the lowest in the country.

So we're sending people to jail less and having better results, which tell us that there are alternatives to incarceration.

I mean, I have grown to believe that we send too many people to prison for too long to be as effective as we need it to be.

It's not, in fact, it's oftentimes detrimental both to society and to the individual.

So when you ask me about one of the greatest accomplishments, it's each one of those people that I treated as an individual who came before me in the criminal justice system, who I was able to look at from a different perspective, who I was able to show empathy toward to see what brought them here.

I like to tell people that the courts are a great sieve for all of society's problems that society doesn't want to or can't deal with.

Poverty, mental health issues, substance abuse, racism, sexism, and whatnot.

And society doesn't deal with those.

And each one of those leads to criminal behavior.

And so the court system, at the end of this funnel, the court systems has to deal with the criminal behavior, but in the context of a societal problem that we don't have the tools to fix.

And so, more and more courts, and I'm proud of what we've done here in federal court in Rhode Island, has tried to change that paradigm so that we look at how do we deal with someone instead of a knee jerk incarceration period.

How do we do it to accomplish what we need to do to show respect for the law, of course, to deter them from doing it and assist them in turning their life around.

So I must say, each one of those people where I've been able to do that is probably what I will always feel has been one of my greatest accomplishments.

- In closing, in the time before you became a judge in 2011, you and Democratic activist, Kate Coyne-McCoy were credited with surfacing a future political candidate who we now know as Gina Raimondo.

Do you still keep in touch with her?

- We do.

We do.

Yes.

We were friends before she ran.

She was identified as someone who would be a great public servant.

I was proud to help her make the decision to run in the first place.

At her request would counsel her when she had questions along the way or wanted to run things by.

She'd remained more of a friend than a political ally, certainly.

But yeah, no, we've stayed in touch.

I wish her well.

I'm so proud of her on the national scene.

I'm proud of her work as Secretary of Commerce, and I'm proud of her as a mom to CC and Tommy.

- Do you see a presidential run in her future?

- That's out of my bailiwick right now.

- Judge Jack McConnell of US district court in Providence, thank you so much for sitting down with us.

- Thanks for having me, Ian.

- Thanks for watching One on One with me, Ian Donnis.

You can find all of our past interviews on the YouTube channel for Ocean State Media.

We'll see you next week.

(bright music)