Former Stanford employee Dolly Kay Patterson faces up to 5 years in federal prison after admitting she threatened to harm a Trump-appointed judge and his children for his ruling restricting access to abortion drugs.
Key Takeaways
- Dolly Kay Patterson, a retired Stanford University staffer, pleaded guilty to sending threatening messages to Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk and his family through a federal court website
- Patterson’s threats came in direct response to Kacsmaryk’s April 2023 ruling that suspended FDA approval of the abortion drug mifepristone
- This case highlights the growing pattern of violent threats against conservative judges making rulings on contentious issues like abortion
- A second woman, Alice Marie Pence, was already sentenced to 10 months in prison for threatening Judge Kacsmaryk with sniper violence
- Patterson faces sentencing on September 30 and could receive up to 5 years behind bars
Leftist Threats Against Conservative Judge
A California woman who previously worked at Stanford University has admitted to threatening a federal judge and his family over a ruling that temporarily restricted access to abortion medication. Dolly Kay Patterson, who entered a guilty plea as part of an agreement with prosecutors, now faces up to five years in federal prison for her actions targeting U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. The threats were made in April 2023 after Kacsmaryk, appointed by President Trump, issued a ruling suspending FDA approval of mifepristone, a drug commonly used in chemical abortions across America.
“Tell this antiabortion judge he needs to watch his back—and that of his kids—for the rest of his life!” Said Dolly Kay Patterson
Patterson sent her threatening message through the Northern District of Texas court’s official website, clearly intending to intimidate the judge into reconsidering his position on the controversial abortion medication. Initially, Patterson faced two criminal counts but managed to secure a plea deal reducing her charges. When first confronted by U.S. Marshals at her home, Patterson denied responsibility for the threats, but later confessed during questioning. Her sentencing is scheduled for September 30, where she could receive the maximum five-year prison term.
Pattern of Violent Intimidation Against the Judiciary
The Patterson case is not an isolated incident but rather part of a disturbing pattern of threats against conservative judges. Judge Kacsmaryk has been the target of multiple threats since his ruling on mifepristone, with another California woman, Alice Marie Pence, already sentenced to 10 months in prison for threatening him with sniper violence. These cases underscore the increasing danger faced by judges who issue rulings that contradict leftist abortion policies, with many liberal activists apparently willing to resort to criminal intimidation tactics rather than pursuing legitimate legal challenges.
The original ruling by Judge Kacsmaryk came in response to a lawsuit filed by several pro-life organizations challenging the FDA’s approval process for mifepristone. While a federal appeals court partially upheld his decision, the U.S. Supreme Court later overturned it on procedural grounds. Despite this, the underlying case may continue with new plaintiffs, including several Republican-led states seeking stricter regulations on abortion medications. The left’s extreme reaction to these legal proceedings demonstrates their willingness to abandon civil discourse when confronted with judicial decisions they oppose Stated Judge Kacsmaryk
Growing Security Concerns for Federal Judiciary
The prosecution of Patterson highlights the serious security concerns facing federal judges in today’s politically charged environment. Legal experts have increasingly called for enhanced funding for judicial security, especially for judges handling controversial cases involving abortion, immigration, and other divisive issues. The targeting of not just Judge Kacsmaryk but also his children represents a particularly disturbing escalation in these threats, suggesting that some abortion advocates are willing to endanger innocent family members in their attempts to intimidate the judiciary.
This case serves as a stark reminder of the personal risks faced by judges who uphold constitutional principles rather than bowing to political pressure. While the legal system has responded by prosecuting those who make these threats, the continuing pattern of intimidation raises questions about whether additional protective measures are needed. As Patterson awaits her sentencing, her case stands as a warning that threatening federal judges carries serious consequences, regardless of one’s political motivations or ideological disagreements.
