Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett went to Capitol Hill Tuesday to ask lawmakers for tens of millions of dollars more to expand the Supreme Court’s security force, a rare public appeal from the top of the judicial hierarchy for more state protection. The court’s own police budget is surging, and the justices told Congress that threats, leaks, and the strain on their families now justify even more money and more control.
Who Gets Protected
Kagan told a House Appropriations subcommittee that threats against the justices were up 25 percent last year and that the Supreme Court Police expect a 38 percent increase this year. “For some of us, those threats have come very close, and all of us live with the knowledge that they may again materialize,” Kagan said. That’s the language of a fortified institution closing ranks, with armed protection and budget requests flowing upward while ordinary people get told to accept the system as it is.
Barrett described a swatting incident two months ago, when a 911 caller falsely claimed to have heard an argument and gunshots at her home in Fairfax County, Virginia. One of her teenage sons opened the door and saw “in our street it was full of police cars,” she said. Barrett said the 24-hour Supreme Court police detail at her home helped prevent violence. “I was very, very grateful that I had Supreme Court police outside my home because they were able to stop and meet with and explain to the county police that it had been a false alarm,” she said.
She also repeated a story about one of her sons seeing a bulletproof vest she’d been given because of threats that followed POLITICO’s publication in 2022 of a draft decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. “Many of us, me included, have received threatening anonymous deliveries designed to intimidate and harass us,” Barrett said. “I'm very grateful for the residential security. … That has just been huge for us.”
The Court’s Security State
Kagan said security at the court was fairly lax when she joined in 2010. “I just walked out on the street,” she said. “I had no security with me…I drove back and forth to work by myself.” She confirmed that the court began intensifying security in 2017 after Chief Justice John Roberts was visited by members of Congress who warned that the court’s relaxed security posture was “crazy.” “We … are grateful to Congress for coming to us and saying you have to up your game in this area,” she said. “That was really the start.”
Kagan said the drive to increase security was redoubled after the leak of the decision in the 2022 abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. “When personal threats increased following the Dobbs leak, we expanded our residential security and threat assessment activities,” she said. She also said the court is considering creating a visitors’ center so security screening could happen outside the court building. Right now, the public’s X-ray machines and metal detectors operate in a space under the court’s grand staircase facing the Capitol. “We are concerned about people coming into the building right now before they've been checked,” Kagan said.
The court is also asking for more money after Congress approved an extra $28 million in January. Kagan said the new $30 million request was needed because the Marshals Service abruptly notified the court that it planned to end security details at the justices’ homes earlier than expected. “We apologize if we did anything procedurally improper,” Kagan said. “We were suddenly confronted with the loss of U.S. Marshal protection. We thought we were going to have U.S. Marshal protection at our residences for another six months.”
What They Call Accountability
There was little discussion about what is driving the threats and whether heated comments by officials, including President Donald Trump and lawmakers, fuel public anger. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said such rhetoric could lead to violence. “It is increasingly dangerous to be a Supreme Court justice these days,” Collins said. “It’s appalling to me that some of the rhetoric is coming from public officials on both sides of the aisle who should know better….This overheated language this completely inappropriate rhetoric against the Supreme Court endangers the lives of the justices.”
Some Democrats pressed the justices on the court’s emergency or “shadow” docket and the lack of any way to enforce the high court’s ethics code. Kagan said, “I think that we would be better off with an enforcement mechanism,” while Barrett was non-committal. “I'm just not quite sure,” Barrett said, citing the “complexity” of regulating officials who are atop the judicial branch. That’s the familiar trick: the people at the top admit the rules are murky, then keep the power anyway.
Republican lawmakers asked about the Dobbs leak and the court’s inconclusive investigation into that breach. Kagan said, “There have been additional leaks over time, too,” and added, “This is something that is has frustrated all of us.” Barrett said the court recently began requiring employees to sign non-disclosure agreements aimed at discouraging leaks. “We're hoping that driving the need for confidentiality home with these NDAs will will just be an additional an additional check on employees who are sharing information inappropriately and often illegally,” she said.
Barrett said the court does all it can to be transparent, but Rep. Sanford Bishop, D-Ga., pointed out that virtually all the court’s contracts are issued secretly, including one with a consulting firm retained to assess the court’s security posture and review the court’s inconclusive investigation into the Dobbs leak. Bishop urged the justices to make public all contracts for more than $1 million. Kagan said she had not considered the issue and would have to take it back to her colleagues. The institution wants public trust, public money, and private contracts. Same old arrangement.