10
Loading video...
By Giulia Carbonaro and Dan Gooding
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Two Supreme Court justices appeared before Congress on Tuesday to ask for tens of millions of dollars in additional security funding, as threats against federal judges and their families are rising.
The two—Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan, one a representative of the court’s conservative majority, the other of its liberal wing—made a rare appearance at the U.S. Capitol to testify about the court’s $228 million request for the budget year beginning October 1—an increase of about $20 million from its previous funding.
It is the first time that Supreme Court justices have testified before Congress since 2019.
Read More on News
Barrett in particular was expected to face questions about her recent rulings as she emerges from a divisive term during which the court thwarted President Donald Trump’s attempts to end birthright citizenship and impose sweeping global tariffs, but the hearings remained largely cordial and calm, in comparison to hearings with Cabinet members of late.
Speaking before the House Appropriations Committee, Barrett shared details of the threats made against her family.
"They have required me and my children to think about and see things that children should not have to see or think about," Barrett said. "One example is when threats to my life were particularly intense a few years ago, around the time of the Dobbs leak.
"My security detail sent me home with a bulletproof vest. I carried it into my house, put it into my bedroom, dropped it down on a table, turned around any my 12-year-old son was standing in the doorway of my bedroom and he wanted to know what it was, and why I had it," Barrett continued.
"I didn't know how to respond. Maybe because I lack imagination, but I didn't expect that performing this service was going to put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was, and why I needed to wear one."
...
Barrett also explained how she had been the victim of a swatting incident in recent weeks. Her son had opened the door of their home to see police cars outside responding to what she said were false reports of gun shots in the house.
"Many of us including me have received threatening anonymous deliveries to harass and intimidate us," Barrett said. "The threat level is really high."
What Are Supreme Court Justices Asking For?
The judiciary has requested $920.9 million for security for fiscal year 2027, an increase of $28.9 million over the fiscal year 2026 budget, or up 3.2 percent. This money, if approved, would be used for front-line security forces at federal courthouses.
The Supreme Court itself has requested a total of $228 million for the next fiscal year, a roughly 10 percent increase over the year before. This includes an increase of $14.6 million to expand the Supreme Court Police’s protective activities to protect justices and their families, including at their homes and when they travel outside of the Washington area.
Newsweek contacted the Supreme Court's Public Information Office for comment by email on Tuesday morning.
"The funding they seek for added security is testament to the hyperpolarized era in which we live," Charles Gardner Geyh, judiciary professor at Indiana University Bloomington, told Newsweek Monday. "Federal judges have always had to worry about unhinged litigants threatening the lives of judges who rule against them. But what we are witnessing now is something new.
"President Trump has ramped up his attacks on lower court judges who enjoin his executive orders, calling them radicals and monsters. And he has attacked Supreme Court justices who rule against him, which incites his base to threaten the judges he singles out."
This money would allow the funding of an additional six agents per justice and an administrative position, according to budget documents, as well as 25 officers "necessary to enhance security at the Supreme Court Building," and four additional police administration positions "to support significant growth within the Department."
...
Documents show that Supreme Court Justices have specifically requested $6.5 million to fund a new facility that would screen visitors outside the court’s home on Capitol Hill, similar to what was done at the Capitol when the visitor center opened in 2008.
They have also requested $2.3 million to hire engineers and developers able to protect the justices from cyberthreats, and $2 million to fund an additional command post "necessary to coordinate assignments and protection coverage for the Court’s residential security program."
This command post "will increase hiring and retention rates of Supreme Court police officers, improve reaction time in case of emergency, and produce an overall less costly and more efficient security program," according to budget documents.
Overall, besides additional money for security, the judiciary is asking for $9.7 billion in funding, a 4.5 percent increase over the fiscal year 2026 enacted appropriation of $9.2 billion.
"Since the justices request a significant, and precipitously growing, amount of money from taxpayers each year, they should be required to justify that request annually before appropriators, just like any other part of government," Gabe Roth, founder of campaign group Fix the Court, told Newsweek.
"A major benefit of having the justices come to the Hill is that the American public will get to see them with their own eyes and will recognize they're just as much a part of our government as officials in the other two branches, who, unlike SCOTUS, often perform their work in front of cameras and who, at least theoretically, have much stricter ethical boundaries under which to operate."
Whether Congress decides to approve the Supreme Court justices’ and the judiciary’s requests or not, lawmakers have until September 30 to pass a new spending bill for fiscal year 2027.
"I have no problem with the justices receiving the funding they're requesting, given the heightened threat environment," Roth said. "But even as they receive the funds, the justices should answer questions about their contracting practices, their increased propensity for using the shadow docket to issue controversial opinions and any ongoing efforts they have to maintain high standards of professional ethics."
...
Why Make the Request Now?
The Supreme Court is requesting more funding to protect its justices after threats against them and other federal judges have increased in recent years. Already, after protests erupted outside the justices’ homes following the court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022, when Brett Kavanaugh became the target of an assassination attempt, justices started receiving around-the-clock security at their residences.
But threats to justices have continued, with Barrett being the target of a "swatting" attempt at her suburban Virginia home in May. Last year, her sister was the victim of a false bomb threat in Charleston, South Carolina.
The U.S. Marshals Service, the agency responsible for protecting the federal judiciary, reported 564 threats in the government fiscal year that ended in September, up from 509 the year prior. These were threats posed to the hundreds of federal judges across the country, including Supreme Court justices.
Geyh told Newsweek that politicians have escalated the public's anger toward jurists by blaming them after court decisions.
"That only makes the situation more dangerous because it incentivizes court critics to escalate their threats in the hope of intimidating the judges they attack," he said. "Asking for increased appropriations to better protect judges from threats to their lives is essential, but it is like applying a Band-Aid to a sucking chest wound. The only real solution is for leaders on both sides to stand up and tell their supporters in unequivocal terms, to stand down."
Republican Says There's 'Not a Money Fairy'
Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana told Fox News in part on Tuesday, "Well, I’m sorry that they feel insecure. They’re not the only ones. And if I sound unsympathetic, I don’t mean to ... But look, I listened to part of their testimony; they want a 10 percent budget increase for security. They’re like everybody else up here, their favorite type of spending is ‘more.'
“There’s not a money fairy up here. This money that we appropriate comes out of people’s pockets or we have to borrow it,” adding that he will take a look at their request.
Times Supreme Court Justices Have Testified
Although congressional appearances by Supreme Court justices are often described as unusual today, they were once routine. Congressional data cited by SCOTUSblog shows a justice appeared before Congress every year from 1960 through 2011, usually to discuss the judiciary's budget, making the modern perception of such testimony as extraordinary a relatively recent development.
Among current members of the High Court, Justice Clarence Thomas has testified 13 times, most recently in 2010.
In 2023, Chief Justice John Roberts declined a Senate Judiciary Committee invitation to testify about Supreme Court ethics, saying such testimony by a chief justice is "exceedingly rare" given separation-of-powers concerns and the need to preserve judicial independence.
Kagan and Justice Samuel Alito testified before a House appropriations subcommittee in March 2019. Members questioned them not only about the court's budget but also about a potential Supreme Court ethics code and whether court proceedings should be televised.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Ben Kelly, Cristina Diciu, Anna Commander and Gray R. Thomas.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines