U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Elena Kagan testified before Congress this week regarding intensifying security threats to the Court.
The rare appearance by sitting justices underscores a growing volatility surrounding the judiciary. The testimony highlights how political polarization has transitioned from ideological debate to direct physical threats against the highest court in the land.
Appearing before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government and the Senate Appropriations Committee on Capitol Hill, the justices detailed specific risks to their safety. Justice Barrett said to the committee that she has been required to wear a bullet-proof vest since a 2022 decision [1].
"I was forced to wear a bullet-proof vest after the 2022 decision because the threats intensified," Barrett said [2].
Beyond the justices themselves, the testimony addressed the targeting of their families. Justice Kagan said that family members have been subjected to swatting hoaxes, a practice where emergency services are falsely called to a residence to trigger a police raid, which she described as unacceptable [3].
Barrett said to the committee that the Court has seen a sharp rise in threats against its members and requires more resources to ensure their protection [4]. To address these vulnerabilities, the justices are seeking a significant increase in the security budget. Depending on the reporting source, the request is estimated between $225 million [5] and $230 million [6].
The request for the fiscal 2027 budget aims to modernize security measures, and increase the protective detail for justices and their immediate families. This move follows a period of increased public protest and targeted harassment of judicial officials following high-profile rulings.
“"I was forced to wear a bullet-proof vest after the 2022 decision because the threats intensified,"”
The request for a substantial budget increase and the admission that justices are wearing body armor signals a shift in the operational reality of the Supreme Court. It suggests that the Court no longer views its security needs as routine, but as a critical necessity to maintain the independence and safety of its members amid extreme political polarization.
