Justices Seek Millions for Security

Two Supreme Court justices just asked Congress for millions in extra security because threats against judges are rising faster than Washington’s ability to protect them.

Story Snapshot

Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan made a rare trip to the House to defend a big security funding request.
The Supreme Court wants about $14.6 million more for protection, plus money to secure justices’ homes and families.
Judicial leaders are seeking over $900 million for courthouse security nationwide amid growing threats to judges.
The clash over security funding exposes how even basic safety needs get tangled in budget politics and public distrust.

Two Justices Cross the Street to Ask Congress for Protection Money

On July 14, Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan appeared before the House Appropriations Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee to talk about the court’s budget. This kind of public testimony by sitting justices almost never happens. The last time justices did this was in 2019, when Elena Kagan and Samuel Alito spoke about funding needs. The rare visit alone signaled that the court sees today’s security problems as serious, and growing, not routine.

Committee chair Representative Tom Cole, a Republican from Oklahoma, invited the justices to explain the fiscal year 2027 request. They focused on safety for the nine justices and for judges across the country. Barrett and Kagan were not there to weigh in on hot-button rulings or political fights. They came to ask for money to keep judges alive and able to do their jobs. That simple mission still dropped them straight into Washington’s larger battles over spending and power.

What the Supreme Court Is Asking For and Why It Matters

The Supreme Court is seeking about $228 million for the coming budget year, an increase of roughly $20 million over current funding. Of that requested increase, about $14.6 million is earmarked for security, including stronger protection at the court and at the justices’ homes. Reports also describe an added amount for home security systems and protection for family members, reflecting fears that threats can follow justices beyond the marble steps and into their private lives.

Across the whole judicial branch, leaders are asking for about $920.9 million to place front-line security officers at every federal courthouse. They point to a clear rise in threats and harassment aimed at judges, often tied to controversial cases on abortion, immigration, guns, and elections. In 2022, for example, a man armed with a gun and other weapons was arrested outside Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home and later pleaded guilty to attempting to kill him. That case is now a key example used to show how real these dangers have become.

Swatting, Bomb Threats, and a System That Cannot Protect Itself

Recent reporting says Justice Barrett has been a direct victim of “swatting,” where someone makes a fake emergency call to send armed police to a home. Her sister’s home was also reportedly targeted with a bomb threat, though public details are thin, and there is no released Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case file yet. These incidents are not fully documented in public records, but they line up with a wider trend: people using threats and fear to pressure judges when they dislike court decisions.

The judiciary has no police force of its own that can write checks and build security on demand. It must ask Congress, which controls the money, for help. That structure goes back to the Constitution, which gave lawmakers power over the purse. Today, it means even basic safety measures for judges depend on the same Congress that many Americans across the political spectrum view as slow, self-interested, and captured by powerful elites. When the Supreme Court has to plead for bodyguards and cameras, it reminds people how exposed every branch of government really is.

Security Needs Collide With Public Anger and Budget Politics

For conservatives, a request for millions more in security lands in a climate of anger over decades of growing federal spending, high debt, and bailouts that seem to help the well-connected first. For liberals, the same request appears amid deep worry about inequality, corporate power, and leaders they see as shielding themselves while ordinary people struggle. Both sides increasingly doubt that Washington uses tax dollars to serve the public rather than the “deep state” and other insiders.

Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett are set to testify before Congress today.

The hearing will be focused on the court’s request for a $16.6 million budget increase to bolster security for the justices at work and at home. https://t.co/rsSro1XH1S

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) July 14, 2026

That mood shapes how this hearing will be judged. On paper, the numbers are modest next to the full federal budget. In practice, any new spending faces questions: Who benefits? Who decides? Can the same leaders who have failed to control inflation or fix broken systems be trusted to protect judges without abusing that power? Some critics warn that more security could make the court seem even more distant from everyday people, while others argue that leaving justices exposed would invite mob rule and violence.

Where Agreement Is Possible, and Where It May Break Down

There is little public dispute about the basic facts that threats against judges are rising and that some attacks have come close to tragedy. Reports about the Kavanaugh attempt, swatting, and bomb threats are not met with detailed counter-evidence; they are mainly met with silence or general concern. The main argument is not whether danger exists but how much money and power the court should receive in response, and how closely Congress should watch that spending.

This creates a narrow but important space for agreement. Most Americans do not want judges shot at their homes or chased from the bench by fear. At the same time, many feel the system protects insiders first, then remembers the public. The Barrett and Kagan hearing puts that tension in full view: a Supreme Court that cannot guard itself, a Congress that many people do not trust, and a country trying to decide how to keep its institutions safe without giving those institutions a blank check.