Two Supreme Court justices took the rare step of testifying before Congress this week, laying bare the escalating danger facing the bench and its members. Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett appeared before House lawmakers to defend a $228 million budget request aimed at fortifying security around the court and its nine justices.
The testimony marked the first time in seven years that sitting justices have answered questions on Capitol Hill. The appearance was notably civil, with lawmakers from both parties treating the matter with urgency rather than partisan rancor.
Justice Kagan was direct about the peril. "Threats have come very close" to the justices in recent years, she told the House committee. The Supreme Court Police have documented a 38 percent increase in threats this year alone, following a 25 percent jump the previous year. Overall, the U.S. Marshals Service recorded more than 600 threats against federal judges in fiscal year 2023, a number that continues climbing.
Justice Barrett's testimony took on a more personal tone. She described the impact of round-the-clock security on her family, including her son witnessing her bring home a bulletproof vest. Both justices acknowledged the profound intrusion that constant protection imposes on their daily lives.
"It's easier living life without security than it is living life with security," Justice Kagan said.
The court's security request includes expanding its police force, which guards justices at their homes and while traveling, hiring cybersecurity engineers to prevent digital attacks, and constructing an off-site screening facility for visitors. Each justice currently has between four and eight law enforcement officers assigned to their detail, a number the court hopes to increase.
The $6.5 million design proposal for a visitor screening facility represents a modest step from the court's more dramatic move in 2010, when it sealed off its iconic front entrance to the public. That decision, made on security grounds, closed off the marble steps and bronze doors that had long symbolized public access to the judiciary. Justice Stephen Breyer dissented in a rare written statement, arguing that no other Supreme Court in the world, including Israel's, had taken such a measure despite equal or greater security threats.
Beyond budget concerns, lawmakers pressed the justices on ethics enforcement. Democrats raised questions about financial disclosures after Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report years of luxury travel and gifts from a wealthy donor. Justice Kagan expressed support for an enforcement mechanism overseen by a committee of respected judges. Justice Barrett, however, flagged concerns about the complexities of implementing such a system, though she affirmed her commitment to following the court's ethics rules.
The justices were also questioned about the court's emergency docket, the expedited process used for urgent matters that can result in terse, lightly reasoned decisions. Justice Kagan acknowledged her past criticism of the conservative majority's use of the shadow docket but noted recent improvement. "I don't think that's so much of a problem anymore," she said, observing that colleagues are now providing more explanation when issuing emergency orders.
Justice Barrett said there has been "a big change" in how the court handles such matters. Lower-court judges have complained about insufficient guidance on applying these emergency rulings, with only 12 of 65 federal judges who responded to a survey saying the Supreme Court provided adequate clarity.
Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee, signaled congressional willingness to fund the request. "The very real threats by our judiciary are in our minds," he said, pledging that "Congress must provide sufficient funding to ensure the safety of all judicial personnel."
The justices were scheduled to repeat their testimony before a Senate committee the same afternoon. Their appearance underscores how dramatically the court's operating environment has changed, particularly over the past several years as political tensions have intensified and the Supreme Court has remained a focal point of national controversy.
Author Sarah Mitchell: "When the nation's highest court has to beg for bullet protection and needs federal funding to screen its visitors, we have crossed into dangerous territory."
Comments