The Lawfare Podcast — "The Besieged District Judges"

With Reynolds Holding and Judge Jed Rakoff
Host: Roger Parloff
Date: December 3, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode of The Lawfare Podcast dives into the increasingly fraught landscape facing U.S. district court judges, focusing on the challenges, public scrutiny, and threats they endure in the current political climate. The conversation features Ren Reynolds Holding, author of Better Judgment, and renowned U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff. Together with host Roger Parloff, they explore Holding’s book—which highlights the pivotal yet underappreciated role of federal district judges—and discuss the legal, historical, and personal dimensions of judicial work amid calls of "war on the courts."

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why Write About District Judges? (02:12–04:03)

• Ren Holding shares that his book aims to illuminate the daily work and personal stories of federal district judges, who are often overlooked compared to the Supreme Court.
• He spotlights three judges with diverse backgrounds—Carlton Reeves, Martha Vasquez, and Jed Rakoff—who, in different ways, have resisted trends reducing judicial authority and access to the courts.

“I wanted to tell the story of the men and women who have the last word in the hundreds of thousands of cases every year that never go up on appeal, that the Supreme Court never comes close to seeing…”
—Reynolds Holding (02:19)

2. Historical Context: “War on the Courts” (04:19–07:15)

• Holding contextualizes current anti-judicial rhetoric, connecting it to earlier American episodes where judicial independence was threatened (Reconstruction, Lochner era, Southern Manifesto).
• He explains that pressures to restrict judicial authority are not new, but that some judges—like those profiled—find creative and principled ways to maintain judicial independence and access.

“There have been other moments in American history when at least a rhetorical war has been waged on judges…”
—Reynolds Holding (04:22)

3. Profiling the Judges (07:21–10:40)

• Carlton Reeves: Grew up in segregated Mississippi, now chairs the Federal Sentencing Commission.
• Martha Vasquez: Daughter of immigrants, motivated to become a judge after witnessing her brother’s harsh sentencing.
• Jed Rakoff: Known for challenging “neither admit nor deny” SEC settlements after the 2008 financial crisis.

4. Current Rhetoric: “It’s a War” (10:40–13:24)

• The panel discusses Deputy AG Todd Blanche's remarks about a “war on the courts.”
• Judge Rakoff robustly rejects the characterization, emphasizing that district judges are simply applying the law, often coming from a variety of political backgrounds.

“It’s very wrong, totally wrong... The beauty of the American legal system is that it’s premised on the application of reason and logic to statutes and precedents... To see this in terms of emotions, armaments, warlike activities, it seems to me to be a very misplaced analogy.”
—Judge Rakoff (11:31)

5. Threats Against Judges (15:01–18:34)

• There's a rise in threats to judges, which historically come mostly from disturbed individuals but are now amplified by hostile rhetoric.
• Judges try to remain undeterred, though Rakoff notes the emotional toll is undeniable.
• Rakoff shares a darkly humorous anecdote about a threat he received, underscoring the reality of such experiences.

“Every judge I spoke with has had the experience, has had threats, have gotten the voicemails, and just have heard horrible things directed at them... I would not be surprised if Judge Rakoff had had this experience as well.”
—Reynolds Holding (16:45)

“He said, ‘I’m going to murder you’... I tried to find out exactly what it was that I had done that got him so upset... It became obvious he was upset about a decision that had been made by a different judge.”
—Judge Rakoff (17:19)

6. Supreme Court’s Emergency Docket & Lower Court Defiance (20:04–22:15)

• Discussion of Justice Gorsuch’s criticism of district judges for allegedly “defying” Supreme Court precedent.
• Rakoff voices concern about the prevalence of unexplained or terse Supreme Court emergency orders (“shadow docket”), which undermine the transparency and reasoning expected in a functional legal system.

“The Supreme Court, when it issues these emergency rulings, doesn’t give reasoning. Sometimes no reasoning at all—just a stay... To do it, as has been the case recently in a great many cases involving major issues, seems to me somewhat contrary to the fundamental justification of why we have judges at all.”
—Judge Rakoff (20:04)

7. District Judges’ Approach to Novel Cases (22:50–24:46)

• Rakoff details the process district judges use to navigate new legal territory:
  • Start with the complaint/indictment and applicable precedents.
  • Seek input from lawyers in an adversary system.
  • Occasionally raise issues sua sponte, but only after ensuring parties are heard.

8. Judicial Dissent: The Mark Wolf Example (24:46–28:44)

• The panel discusses former Judge Mark Wolf's resignation and his sharply worded criticism of partisan misuse of the law by the White House.
• Holding reflects on the balance between judges educating the public versus the risk of being “just another voice” after leaving the bench.
• Rakoff affirms that strong judicial opinions—even with sharp criticism—are sometimes called for in the act of adjudicating.

9. Judge Rakoff and the Financial Crisis (35:53–41:46)

• Holding explains why Rakoff’s stance post-2008 was so meaningful: he refused to rubber-stamp government settlements, insisting on factual clarity and transparency—a rare act of accountability at a time of public outrage.
• Rakoff discusses the “neither admit nor deny” SEC policy and how judicial scrutiny can prompt better public awareness and development of the law.

“All judges should be active in looking closely at the cases that are presented to them... We want to encourage agreements where possible, but we don’t want to encourage collusive settlements, we don’t want to encourage settlements that are contrary to the law, etc.”
—Judge Rakoff (38:39)

10. The Meaning of “Justice” — and the Future of the Courts (47:06–56:36)

• Holding clarifies that the book’s focus isn’t about a specific result or ideology, but about judges taking responsibility for ensuring access and fairness.
• Both guests express concern over mounting limits on court access—such as mandatory arbitration and heightened pleading standards.
• Holding notes, recent events since the book’s completion only underline the importance of independent judges for democracy:
  • Judges are the primary officials still holding power to account when other branches falter.

“Judges really are the only people left who are public officials who are trying to hold power to account... When we get through this—and we will get through this—we’ll look back and see that it was the federal district court judges that held it together, that held us together.”
—Reynolds Holding (54:09, 56:05)

11. Notable Humor & Memorable Moments

• Rakoff’s darkly comic story about a mistaken threat caller (17:19–18:34).
• Rakoff’s “duck hunting” joke explaining differences between district, appellate, and Supreme Court judges (51:12–53:36):

“The district judge puts up his gun. Bang. And a bird falls to the ground… he turns to his two colleagues and he says, ‘Sure hope it’s a duck.’ Okay, so that’s the difference between the three levels.”
—Judge Rakoff (51:12)

Timestamps of Key Segments

• 02:12 — Reynolds Holding on the book’s origin and intent
• 04:19 — Historical overview: previous “wars on the courts”
• 07:21 — The three profiled judges and their stories
• 10:40 — Discussion of “war on courts” rhetoric (Todd Blanche quote)
• 11:31 — Judge Rakoff’s response to the war analogy
• 15:01 — Rise in threats to judges
• 17:19 — Judge Rakoff’s story of receiving a threat
• 20:04 — Critique of Supreme Court “shadow docket”
• 22:50 — The district judge’s approach to new issues
• 24:46 — Mark Wolf’s resignation, judicial candor
• 35:53 — Why the SEC settlements mattered; Rakoff’s stance
• 38:39 — Rakoff on “active” versus “activist” judging
• 41:46 — Impact of Rakoff’s example and the “neither admit nor deny” policy
• 47:46 — What makes a judge admirable, according to Holding
• 51:12 — Rakoff’s “duck hunting” joke
• 54:09–56:36 — Postscript: reflecting on the past year and the enduring importance of district judges

Concluding Insights

This episode powerfully illustrates the indispensable and often underappreciated work of district judges—guardians of fact, fairness, and access to justice—amid a storm of rhetoric, threats, and institutional challenge. Both guests urge the public to look beyond high-profile Supreme Court battles and recognize the quiet, constant vigilance of district judges who remain, in Holding’s words, the “only people left who are public officials... trying to hold power to account.”

Notable Quotes Recap

• "The law is what they're following.” — Reynolds Holding (00:54, 14:11)
• "It's very wrong, totally wrong..." — Judge Rakoff on “war” talk (11:31)
• "The Supreme Court has the last word, but district judges have the first word.” — Judge Rakoff (22:50)