Scammers Impersonate Court Officials in Rising Jury Duty Phone Scheme

Fraudsters across the United States are increasingly placing phone calls that impersonate local court officials to claim recipients missed jury duty and face arrest unless they pay fines or fees, law enforcement and consumer-protection officials warn.

Victims report receiving alarming, highly personalized calls that assert a warrant has been issued for missed jury service and demand immediate payment to avoid arrest. The calls often include local courtroom details and use spoofed caller ID numbers to appear legitimate, making them harder to spot than generic phishing messages.

Scammers typically instruct targets to pay immediately using nontraditional methods such as gift cards, prepaid debit cards, cryptocurrency, or wire transfers — channels that are difficult to trace and recover. Some callers also attempt to obtain Social Security numbers, bank account details or other personal information under the guise of verifying identity.

Court systems rarely, if ever, collect fines or resolve jury-service disputes by phone, and they do not threaten arrest over the phone as an immediate enforcement measure, officials said. Consumer-protection agencies advise people who receive such calls to hang up, do not provide personal financial information, and verify any claims by calling the courthouse directly using a phone number obtained from an official court website or government directory.

Experts say the calls are part of a broader trend in which fraudsters exploit trusted institutions and local officials to create urgency and fear. Older tactics such as phishing emails and credential theft remain common, but impersonation by voice or phone is becoming more sophisticated and targeted. Caller ID spoofing, in which a phone number is falsified to appear as a legitimate agency, is a frequent element of these scams.

People who suspect they have been targeted are urged to contact local law enforcement and to file complaints with the Federal Trade Commission and the Internet Crime Complaint Center. Reporting helps authorities track trends and identify repeat patterns or networks of abuse.

In addition to disputing calls directly, officials recommend several steps to reduce susceptibility: verify the caller by independently locating the court’s official contact information; do not rush into paying or divulging financial information; refuse methods of payment that are irreversible or nontraceable; and consider call-blocking or screening services to reduce the volume of unsolicited calls.

Privacy and elder-protection advocates note that older adults are often targeted because they may be more trusting of authority or less familiar with newer scam tactics. Courts and local governments increasingly publish guidance on how they contact jurors, including that official notices are usually sent by mail and that courts follow established procedures before imposing sanctions.

Authorities emphasize that no legitimate court official will demand immediate payment over the phone to avoid arrest. Anyone uncertain about a jury summons or potential warrant should contact their local court using publicly available contact information and should not rely on the phone number provided by an unsolicited caller. Consumers who lose money to these schemes may also seek guidance from state attorney general offices on recovery and next steps.

As phone-based impersonation schemes evolve, officials say vigilance, verification and prompt reporting remain the most effective defenses against fraud that leverages fear of legal consequences.