Two Supreme Court justices are heading to Capitol Hill next week to defend a dramatic security funding request in a rare congressional appearance that underscores how institutional threats have fundamentally altered the Court's operational calculus and budget priorities.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan will testify before the House Appropriations subcommittee on the Supreme Court's proposed 2027 budget, marking only the second time in nearly a decade that sitting justices have made such an appearance. The last occurred in 2019, when Kagan and Justice Samuel Alito discussed the Court's 2020 fiscal request. That these two justices—representing opposing ideological wings of the bench—are appearing together signals the severity of what administrators view as an institutional security crisis.
At the center of their testimony will be a request for $20.5 million in additional funding, with $14.6 million dedicated to expanding Supreme Court Police ranks by 25 full-time officers and $2 million allocated specifically for residential security infrastructure at justices' homes. The overall 2027 budget request reaches $228 million.
This request arrives on the heels of a $30 million security increase Congress approved in January, expected to sustain through September 2028. That earlier appropriation came amid documented escalation in threats. At the time of approval, the U.S. Marshals Service—the federal agency responsible for Supreme Court protection—had recorded 166 threats against federal judges since Oct. 1 of the previous year. The year before, more than 560 threats had been documented.
Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his 2024 year-end report that threats against federal judges have more than tripled over the past decade, with the Marshals Service investigating more than 1,000 serious threats during the preceding five years.
The 24/7 residential security details now standard for all nine justices originated in May 2022, immediately following the leak of the draft Dobbs opinion—the internal document that presaged the Court's decision eliminating constitutional abortion protections.
The following month brought attempted assassination. An armed man approached Justice Brett Kavanaugh's Maryland home with what authorities described as intent to harm. The incident crystallized what had previously been abstract vulnerability: the justices' private residences were no longer secure retreats but potential attack surfaces.
In May of this year, Barrett became the target of what authorities classified as a swatting incident—a false report of gunshots at her Virginia residence that triggered police response. That same year brought investigation of a bomb threat targeting Barrett's sister at a South Carolina residence. The reported pipe bomb discovered in her mailbox proved to be a hoax, but the incident demonstrated how threats extended to family members.
Barrett and Kagan's joint appearance, despite their jurisprudential opposition, suggests the Court's leadership recognizes that security threats transcend ideological divides. Threats against federal judges do not discriminate by judicial philosophy.
Congress's willingness to approve escalating security budgets indicates at minimum bipartisan acceptance that the threat environment has fundamentally shifted. House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole, a Republican, stated at the time of the earlier increase: "We just want to make sure nothing happens to any of our justices."
What remains unresolved is whether additional police staffing and residential security represent a sustainable long-term solution or merely a response that lags behind the actual threat trajectory. The data shows tripling of threats over a decade; the funding increases represent adjustments measured in millions annually.
The Capitol Hill testimony next week will provide a public window into how the Court's administrative leadership explains these security needs to legislators—and whether those explanations trigger broader conversation about the conditions that have made such requests necessary.
