Supreme Court justices detail security risks and weigh in on ethics in rare congressional testimony

The main focus of the hearings in the House and Senate was a request for increased security funding for the justices. Like judges around the country, they’ve faced a surge in threats of violence and intimidation.

Barrett said she had to take a bulletproof vest home a few years ago, something she struggled to explain to her 12-year-old son. “I didn’t expect that performing this service would put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was, why I had to wear one,” she said.

While security was the major theme of the justices’ testimony, ethics and the shadow docket also emerged as lines of questioning for members of Congress in packed hearing rooms with lines out the door.

Security is central to the Supreme Court's budget request

The Supreme Court requested a total of $228 million for next fiscal year, a roughly 10% increase over the year before. About $18 million of that is for maintaining the building and grounds.

Much of the requested operating-budget increase, $14.6 million, would go to expanding personal protection for justices, with six more agents for each.

The U.S. Marshals Service reported 564 threats in the last government fiscal year, an increase that includes threats to the hundreds of federal judges around the country.

The nine-member Supreme Court has also been targeted, including by fake 911 swatting calls and pizza deliveries in the name of a judge’s murdered son.

Barrett said her son opened their door in May to see their street filled with police cars responding to a fake swatting call that her security team quickly dispersed. Last year, her sister was the victim of a bomb threat in Charleston, South Carolina, police said. No bomb was found.

In 2022, shortly after the leak of a draft opinion overturning the Roe v. Wade abortion decision, a would-be assassin was arrested near the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh with weapons and zip ties. Threats to the Supreme Court have continued to grow since then and are expected to be up 38% this year, Kagan said.

She condemned rhetoric from public officials targeting judges for personal criticism when they disagree with their rulings.

“When political figures of any stripe are trying to intimidate judges and justices to do things that they like rather than things they don’t, that’s where we really have crossed the line,” she said.

Kagan and Barrett differ on ethics code enforcement

Multiple Democrats brought up the Supreme Court's relatively new code of ethics, adopted in 2023 during a storm of criticism over undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors to some justices.

While the justices agreed that members of the court are taking the code seriously, Kagan supported creating a way to enforce it. The liberal-leaning justice acknowledged, though, that enforcement could be tricky. That would have to come from the judicial branch and the Supreme Court sits at its head.

Barrett, who is part of the court’s conservative majority, said she's not sure an enforcement mechanism is possible. It's not clear there's an effective way to address questions about who would do the enforcing and how, she said.

“I am certainly fully committed to the code as are all of our colleagues, but because of some of the complexities I'm just not quite sure" about enforcement, she said.

Kagan cites downsides to the rise in emergency appeals

The Supreme Court has seen a sharp rise in appeals to its short-term emergency docket, where the justices make quicker decisions in cases still working their way through the court system.

It's been especially busy during Trump's second term, as his administration appeals orders blocking parts of his wide-ranging agenda to the nation's highest court. The government notched a string of wins in this manner, on cuts to the federal workforce, restrictions on transgender members of the military, and more.

Such decisions are usually made without a detailed explanation, and while the orders are designed to be temporary they can nevertheless have real-world effects.

“There are downsides of using emergency relief," Kagan said. “You don’t get the kind of briefing that we ordinarily do. We don’t get the argument we ordinarily get." She added: “We should consider those downsides when we decide how often to grant relief.”

___

Associated Press video journalist Nathan Ellgren contributed to this story.