The United States Supreme Court has become a dangerous place for those who disagree with leftist ideologies: litigants are subject to death threats, harassment, protests, and even “doxxing,” which is the posting of personal information (even their addresses) online in order to harass them. Justices faced similar threats, including at least one assassination attempt.

After the leaked draft Supreme Court opinion that Roe v. Wade was soon to be overturned, Catholic Churches and pro-life pregnancy centres faced an onslaught violent pro-abortion assaults.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s family learned that authorities arrested Nicholas John Roske in the middle night just steps away from their home. Roske, 26, had travelled from California to Maryland specifically with the intent of killing Kavanaugh, as well as two other justices.

Roske said that he became more motivated to assassinate the justices after seeing their addresses online. The radical pro-abortion organization Ruth Sent Us published the addresses of the justices shortly after the leak. They urged protesters to visit the homes and offices of “six extreme justices” likely to have voted to overturn Roe, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

Our Rights DC protesters and Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights, both of the far-left, joined the groups to target the homes of the justices, despite the fact that 18 U.S. Code Section 1507 prohibits picketing, parading, or other actions “in or around a building or home occupied or utilized by such a judge, jury, witness, court officer, or similar person” with the intention to intimidate or influence this person.

Lorie Smith is now facing a torrent of vitriol after the recent Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. She is so afraid of it that she won’t let her daughter, 11, play alone in front of their house.

Smith, a graphic artist who owns 303 Creative website design, just won a major victory. The Supreme Court ruled that Colorado could not force her to design designs (in this instance, a website for a wedding of the same gender) with which they disagreed. She is a Christian and does not support same-sex weddings.

Alliance Defending Freedom represented her and called the court decision in this case a “landmark win for free speech.”

Critics were quick to point out that the ruling was unjustified and demanded reforms to the court. Demand Justice and Take Back the Court say that conservative justices have hijacked American democracy.

These groups are strongly in favor of packing the court, adding more justices to it to change its ideological makeup. When a decision is made, they mobilize protesters via social media. They also stress the importance of “staying anger.”

The Daily Signal quoted JCN President Carrie Severino as saying that the radical Left’s tactics, which target Supreme Court justices or litigants, are becoming more violent and endangering the rule of law. (JCN is a group dedicated to promoting and protecting the U.S. Constitution.

Smith told The Daily Signal in an interview that she believed “egregious” lies were being spread about her case, the court decision, and herself.

She said that “a lot of it has led to some of the backlash” she has received. This has unfortunately included death threats.

Smith says that the misinformation spread by the media is a major cause of the anger. She said that the “influx” of traffic on her website was due to people who were angry about the court’s decision. She struggles because she believes the ruling of the court doesn’t only protect her but everyone.

“ADF has to read a lot the messages that come through my website, because they are so vile. I am at a stage where it makes my skin crawl.”

Smith called the threats against her family, including death threats, rape threats and threats of bodily harm and sex abuse, “heartbreaking.”

She said that most people repeat “misunderstandings” that have been published in the media. This is largely because she believes in the traditional marriage.

She said that many of the threats alluded to people having my home address, and that they had posted it on social media to encourage others to send hateful message. It’s all coming at me, from phone, email and mail to my website and social media.

The Daily Signal contacted the Supreme Court of the United States and the U.S. The Marshals Service asked if the justices had faced similar threats in the wake of the 303 Creative ruling. The Supreme Court and the Marshals Service did not respond to requests for comments.

In March, the Supreme Court requested that Congress increase funding for protecting the justices. $5,897,000 was allocated for “expansions of protective activities” and $585,000 to create new positions in information technology security, including “cybersecurity,” “software development,” and “network engineering.”

The protective activities request states that “this request would expand the security activities conducted by Supreme Court Police in order to protect the Justices,” before citing specifically the existence of threats against the justices.

The request goes on to say that “continuous threat assessments reveal evolving risks which require constant protection.” The request continues, “Additional funds would be used to fund contract positions that eventually become full-time staff, which will enhance the capabilities of Supreme Court Police Force and allow them to fulfill their protective mission.”

Smith was asked if she felt safe. She replied that she had seen and read many hateful messages and threats. However, she knew that God is a good God, and that He has been protecting her for seven years.

The Daily Signal reported that activist groups who spread misinformation and vitriol regarding Supreme Court cases such as Smith’s “really diminish the importance of what this case means for all Americans,” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Kellie Fiedorek said.

The court’s statement that the government cannot force you to say anything you don’t agree with is a benefit to all of us.

She added, “In truth, the court’s ruling was not new.” “The law they applied was the same law they have always applied. They are just doing it now, in a time when people strongly disagree with Lorie’s vi