Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his 2024 year-end report that the independence and legitimacy of federal courts were under attack. While recognizing passionate reactions to judicial rulings as inevitable and strong criticism as occasionally warranted, Roberts underscored that "not all actors engage in 'informed criticism' or anything remotely resembling it."

The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court noted that types of "illegitimate activity" exist which "threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends: (1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments."

'The media's coverage of events like these are hypocritical to say the least.'

Roberts stressed that "attempts to intimidate need not physically harm judges to threaten judicial independence" and can take the form of visits to judges' homes.

Over the weekend, a flotilla comprising leftist demonstrators paddled to Roberts' summer home on Hupper Island, just off Port Clyde, Maine, to protest the high court's recent rulings.

While the maritime demonstration was relatively unremarkable — mainland geriatrics reportedly griping about the Supreme Court's rulings in Dobbs, President Donald Trump's immunity case, and cases of interest to non-straight activists — it signaled leftists' continued willingness to apply political pressure to justices where they live.

The protest was reportedly organized by Susan MacNeil-Densmore of the Audacity, a leftist group that claims to oppose "fascism, bigotry, and violence in the second age of Trump."

RELATED: July shows strong signs of a coming and violent Democratic implosion

 Win McNamee/Getty Images

MacNeil-Densmore told the Midcoast Villager ahead of the maritime demonstration that a federal and local police presence was expected on the island and that protesters were instructed to keep their messaging nonviolent.

However, the statement provided by the kayak crew to the paper engaged in the kind of rhetoric that helped set the stage for the attempts on President Donald Trump's life last year.

'What next, serve him an improperly seasoned lobster roll to underscore your incoherent point?'

"United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts presides over the most right-wing Supreme Court in almost 100 years," the statement reads. "Roberts has delivered the majority vote for President Trump's every dictate, even granting him immunity from prosecution for any crimes he commits while he is the president. The Roberts Court is historically unpopular with the public and violated the United States Constitution; Roberts has been the deciding member of the six justices supporting a far-right political agenda. Now is the time to demand resistance to tyranny from people in positions of power, as we move closer to a dictatorship."

Marie Follayttar Smith, a leftist with the Mainers for Accountable Leadership PAC, characterized the protest as a success and suggested that in addition to protesting outside Roberts' home, fellow leftists could purchase property on the island to establish "a resistance head quarters [sic] by the Chief Justice."

Others mocked the elitism and uselessness of the exercise.

Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Department of Justice, tweeted, "Lol talk about privilege — kayak-based resort protest. What next, serve him an improperly seasoned lobster roll to underscore your incoherent point?"

John Malcolm, vice president of the Heritage Foundation's Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, told Blaze News that the protests "are terrible, likely counterproductive, potentially illegal, and highly dangerous, and the media's coverage of events like these are hypocritical to say the least."

"I say they are terrible because they undermine a sense of civility and respect for the judiciary and the rule of law," Malcolm said. "I say they are likely counterproductive because I seriously doubt it will impact how the justices rule in any case or how they conduct their business. I say it is potentially illegal because, for example, 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a) makes it a crime for anyone who, by means of 'any threatening ... communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any ... officer in or of any court of the United States ... in the discharge of his duty.'"

Title 18, Section 1507, of the U.S. Code could also come into play with regard to protests outside justices' homes, as it states that it is illegal to picket or parade in or near a building housing a U.S. court or occupied by a judge, juror, witness, or court officer "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty."

RELATED: Justice Alito issues reminder of what SCOTUS must do, even if unpopular

 Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

Malcolm added that "it is highly dangerous because there are unbalanced people out there who will resort to violence if their more-tame forms of protest are ignored, and, shockingly, there are those who will applaud when that happens."

Malcom referenced the case of Nicholas John Roske, the California man who pleaded guilty on April 8 to traveling from Los Angeles to Montgomery County, Maryland, with the aim of killing Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

When police took Roske into custody and searched his belongings outside Kavanaugh's home on June 8, 2022, they reportedly found a firearm; a tactical knife; two magazines, each containing 10 rounds of ammunition; 17 additional rounds of ammunition; pepper spray; zip ties; and a hammer, a crowbar, and other tools evidently intended for use in the thwarted murder plot.

Whereas the media has largely downplayed, excused, or ignored protests outside the homes of Republican appointees to the high court, Malcolm indicated he had "no doubt if such protests occurred outside the homes of Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, or Jackson, stories covering that would blanket the airwaves, and there would be howls of outrage and self-righteous indignation on the left about the threats to judicial independence that such protests pose."

Roberts, who had protests outside his primary residence last year, emphasized in his annual report, "Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed."