In a chilling reminder of escalating tensions with the judiciary, a 72-year-old Minnesota man has been indicted for allegedly plotting violent revenge against federal judges and a Supreme Court justice.
Robert Phillip Ivers faces charges of threatening to assault and murder a federal judge and a Supreme Court justice, along with transmitting threats across state lines, following his distribution of a disturbing manifesto at a local library that detailed plans to target judges and their families.
Newsweek reported that the trouble began when law enforcement rushed to the Wayzata Library after reports of a man printing copies of a manifesto called "How to Kill a Federal Judge."
Identified as Ivers, he allegedly showed the document to staff and handed them a three-page flyer promoting it as a guide for extremists to plan attacks on judges, politicians, and others.
The flyer bluntly warned that judges would face deadly consequences, a stark message that underscores how personal grievances can spiral into dangerous territory—though, of course, no frustration justifies crossing into threats of violence.
Police from Wayzata located Ivers that same evening and took him into custody, but during transport, he claimed a heart attack, leading authorities to divert him to a hospital for evaluation.
Released from medical care that night, Ivers briefly evaded further immediate detention, highlighting how even routine arrests can hit unexpected snags in our overburdened system.
A search of his vehicle revealed a trove of alarming items, including a photo of the former pope marked with crosshairs, 20 bound copies of his manifesto, flyers, judge lists, a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook, and fireworks.
Officials also discovered a foam box with a toy gun replica, CO2 cartridges, and pellets—innocent enough on their own, but collectively painting a picture of someone teetering on the edge, perhaps driven by years of feeling sidelined by the courts.
Two days later, Wayzata police re-arrested Ivers, who reportedly admitted to presenting his manifesto to library workers, a confession that seals the narrative of intent without room for much doubt.
The 236-page document, prosecutors say, names several federal judges and delves into Ivers' perceived injustices from the legal system, outlining vengeful schemes that include handwritten threats against judges, their children, and even pets.
Such graphic details remind us that while the judiciary must remain impartial, ignoring widespread public disillusionment with "progressive agendas" in rulings only fuels these kinds of extreme reactions—better to address root causes than just prosecute symptoms.
Ivers isn't new to this arena; he was convicted back in 2019 for similar threats against a Minnesota federal judge, with the same book serving as evidence in that case and another, though his attorney at the time, Brett Kelley, argued it shouldn't lead to charges.
Kelley noted, "The government rightly did not charge him in relation to the book in either case because it should not," a point that cleverly nods to free speech boundaries, even as we all agree threats cross the line into criminality.
Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson declared, "Threats to murder a federal judge, a Supreme Court Justice, and a defense attorney are not just words on a page. They are direct attacks on the rule of law."
Thompson's words hit hard, yet in a nation where conservative voices often feel muzzled by elite institutions, one wonders if more empathetic judicial reforms could prevent such escalations rather than just condemning them after the fact.
He added, "We will not allow violent rhetoric to become routine. When someone threatens our judges, we will answer with swift federal prosecution."
That's a fair stance, but let's not overlook how the surge in threats—513 this fiscal year alone, up slightly from 509 last year—might stem from controversial decisions that alienate everyday Americans, calling for balance over blanket crackdowns.
Ivers remains in custody awaiting a detention hearing expected next week, a procedural step that ensures due process even for those accused of undermining it.
When confronted about the flyer's intent to teach hunting and killing, Ivers reportedly quipped, "It was supposed to!"—a retort that's equal parts defiant and disheartening, revealing a mindset warped by unresolved bitterness.
This case arrives amid a troubling uptick in threats against federal judges, as tracked by the U.S. Marshals Service, prompting reflection on how to safeguard justice without stifling legitimate dissent.