For the first time in seven years, two Supreme Court justices sat before Congress to defend their institution's budget and operations. Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett fielded questions about escalating threats against the bench, the court's ethics policies, and a $228 million security request that includes plans to expand police protection, hire cybersecurity specialists, and build an off-site screening facility.
The appearance marked a rare public accounting from the nation's highest court. Kagan, a liberal voice, and Barrett, appointed by the conservative wing, testified separately before House and Senate committees on a Tuesday that fell just two weeks after the court finished its term with several controversial rulings.
Both justices spoke candidly about the personal toll of round-the-clock security. Barrett described the moment her son witnessed her bring a bulletproof vest home. Kagan acknowledged that living under constant protection imposes a heavy burden: "It's easier living life without security than it is living life with security."
Yet the most striking testimony came when Kagan disclosed the scope of the threat landscape. The Supreme Court Police have estimated a 38 percent increase in threats this year, following a 25 percent jump the previous year. Data from the U.S. Marshals Service documented more than 600 threats against federal judges in fiscal 2023 alone.
The court's $228 million request for the fiscal year beginning in October targets multiple vulnerabilities. The funding would expand the Supreme Court Police force that protects justices at their homes and during travel, bring in engineers and developers to counter cyberattacks, and launch construction of a visitor screening facility outside the courthouse itself.
Lawmakers from both parties showed readiness to support the increase. Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House panel, told the justices that Congress must provide sufficient resources to ensure judicial safety. Questions remained measured and collegial, a far cry from the combative tone typical of other congressional hearings.
Beneath the courteous surface, however, a doctrinal split emerged. Democrats pressed the justices on ethics enforcement, a topic thrust into focus when Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose years of luxury travel and gifts from a Texas billionaire. Kagan endorsed a proposal to create an enforcement committee of respected judges to oversee the court's ethics code. Barrett expressed reservations about the practical complexities involved in imposing such a system on the nation's apex court.
The justices also addressed the court's emergency docket, the shadow machinery through which the Supreme Court issues quick, often terse orders with minimal reasoning. Lower-court judges have struggled to apply these decisions as binding precedent, with only 12 of 65 judges surveyed saying the Supreme Court had provided sufficient guidance. Kagan acknowledged the court may have encouraged the problem by granting emergency relief too readily, though she suggested recent improvements have brought better explanation alongside expedited rulings. Barrett concurred that "a big change" has taken place on this front.
One question went unanswered. When asked whether the court had identified who leaked the 2022 draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, both justices said the source remains unknown despite the frustration the breach has caused within the chambers.
The justices revealed that each member of the bench receives protection from four to eight law enforcement officers, a number they hope to increase. The request for an off-site screening facility reflects deep anxiety about access to the building itself. Kagan explained the court's concern that visitors enter the main structure before undergoing any security check.
The drive to fortify the court comes against a backdrop of symbolic loss. In 2010, the Supreme Court closed its iconic front entrance, where public visitors, lawyers, and litigants had once climbed the marble steps beneath the words "Equal Justice Under Law." The decision prompted an unusual dissent from Justice Stephen Breyer, who noted that no other supreme court in the world, including Israel's, had taken such a step despite comparable or greater security threats. Chief Justice John Roberts, who recalled getting "a lump in my throat" walking those steps as a practicing lawyer, oversaw the transition to ground-level entry through reinforced screening areas.
On the question of adopting new technologies, Barrett signaled caution. When asked whether justices and their law clerks would embrace artificial intelligence to streamline work, she said the court is "not there yet." On the matter of the court's paper-filing requirements, which critics say impose unnecessary costs on litigants, she largely sidestepped the question.
The congressional appropriations process will ultimately determine whether the court receives its full request. The hearing underscored a stark reality: the Supreme Court's funding has grown 136 percent over the past decade, nearly four times faster than the broader judiciary's 37 percent increase. Yet lower-court judges, who face the same rising threat environment, depend on a separate funding stream that many say falls short of their security needs.
Author Sarah Mitchell: "Two justices breaking a 7-year silence to plead for money says something about how genuinely alarmed the court has become, but it also exposed a philosophical crack over how the institution polices itself."
Comments