Supreme Court Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett testified before Congress on Tuesday to request additional funding for judicial security [1].
The appearance marks a rare move by sitting justices to lobby the legislative branch directly. It highlights a growing concern over the physical safety of the court's members and their families amid a climate of increasing hostility.
The justices appeared before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government at 10 a.m. ET and later before the Senate Appropriations Committee [2, 3]. The request for more resources comes as a response to a rise in threats targeting the justices [4].
During the proceedings, Justice Barrett described the nature of the risks facing the court. "The threats are constant, and they're always there," Barrett said [5].
There are differing reports regarding the specific financial figures requested during the hearings. Some reports indicate a total security budget request of $230 million [6], while others state the justices are seeking a specific budget increase of approximately $14 million [7].
Both justices emphasized that the need for enhanced security is not a partisan issue, it is a matter of fundamental safety for the judiciary. The request focuses on protecting the justices' homes and their travel, as well as the security of the court's physical premises on Capitol Hill [1, 4].
Congressional appropriators are now weighing these requests as they finalize the budget for the upcoming fiscal cycle. The justices' testimony underscores the tension between the court's independence and its reliance on the legislative branch for the funds necessary to ensure its members' safety [2, 3].
“"The threats are constant, and they're always there."”
This rare public testimony by two justices from different ideological backgrounds signals a unified concern within the Supreme Court regarding their personal safety. By appealing directly to the House and Senate appropriations committees, the court is acknowledging that its existing security infrastructure is insufficient to handle the current volume of threats, potentially necessitating a permanent shift in how the judiciary is funded and protected.
