Supreme Court Justices Ask for More Security in Rare Capitol Hill Appearance

Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan made the unusual trip to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, the first time a justice has appeared before a House panel since 2019. The pair defended the Court’s budget request before the House Appropriations Committee, specifically making the case for increased security funding amid mounting threats against the justices.

While the hearing focused on the Court’s fiscal year 2027 budget request, it quickly became clear that the justices weren’t merely asking Congress for more money. They were also there to warn about the consequences of years of escalating political hostility directed at the judiciary.

Barrett delivered some of the hearing’s most powerful testimony, recounting the aftermath of the unprecedented leak of the Court’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states to enact more comprehensive protections for the unborn. She told lawmakers that she returned home wearing a bulletproof vest and had to explain to her young son why such extraordinary precautions were necessary.

“I’ve had a lot of scary situations,” Barrett said, also recalling a recent “swatting” incident at her home. She explained that while the justices accept criticism as part of serving on the nation’s highest court, the threats increasingly extend beyond the justices themselves and place their families in danger.

Justice Elena Kagan echoed those concerns, telling lawmakers that threats against the Court increased roughly 25 percent last year and are expected to climb another 38 percent this year.

“For some of us, those threats have come very close,” Kagan said, stressing that adequate security is essential for the justices to carry out their constitutional duties without fear for their safety.

The Court is requesting roughly a 10 percent increase in its budget, with much of the additional funding earmarked for expanded security personnel and enhanced protection for the justices at their homes and while traveling.

The justices’ concerns are far from hypothetical. In June 2022, just weeks after the leaked Dobbs draft opinion became public, an armed California man, Nicholas John Roske, traveled to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Maryland home carrying a handgun, ammunition, zip ties, pepper spray, a knife, and burglary tools. Federal prosecutors said Roske admitted he intended to assassinate Kavanaugh because of the expected Dobbs ruling and other Supreme Court decisions.

The attempted assassination came after weeks of organized protests outside the homes of conservative justices following the unprecedented leak of the Dobbs draft opinion. Rather than accepting the Court’s ruling, abortion activists sought to pressure the justices at their own homes, despite a federal law prohibiting picketing intended to influence judges.

But the hostile climate surrounding the Court did not begin with the Dobbs leak and has in fact been enabled by some elected Democrats.

More than two years before the incident at Justice Kavanaugh’s home, then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer stood outside the Supreme Court during arguments in a major abortion case and delivered remarks that prompted a rare public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts.

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh,” Schumer declared. “You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Roberts responded with an extraordinary public statement, warning that rhetoric of that nature carried real consequences.

“Threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate; they are dangerous,” Roberts said. “All members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”

At the time, many Democrats dismissed concerns over Schumer’s remarks. But Roberts’ warning now appears prescient. In the years since, the nation has witnessed an increasingly hostile atmosphere surrounding the Court.

Tuesday’s hearing was a stark reminder that the Supreme Court’s growing security needs did not emerge in a vacuum. Americans are free to disagree with Supreme Court decisions. They are not free to threaten, intimidate, or terrorize justices into ruling a certain way. When elected officials suggest members of the nation’s highest court will “pay the price” for their decisions, no one should be surprised when unstable and deranged individuals decide to take those words literally.

Congress should view the Court’s request not as another routine budget increase, but as the unfortunate cost of protecting judicial independence in an era when political disagreement too often gives way to intimidation and violence.

Paul Belmonte is a Law and Global Affairs student at the University at Buffalo with experience in state government and public policy.