Kagan and Barrett Detail Threats in Plea for Security

In an extraordinary appearance before Congress, Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett delivered chilling firsthand accounts of the threats they and their families face, urging lawmakers to approve a $228 million security budget for the high court. The testimony — the first by sitting justices before a House appropriations panel since 2019 — laid bare the human toll of an escalating crisis of intimidation targeting the federal judiciary.

A Rare Return to Capitol Hill

For decades, Supreme Court justices routinely appeared before Congress to discuss the judiciary’s budget — a practice that continued annually from 1960 through 2011. But in recent years, such testimony has become increasingly uncommon, making Tuesday’s hearing a notable departure from modern norms. Justice Clarence Thomas has testified 13 times, most recently in 2010, while Kagan and Justice Samuel Alito last appeared before a House appropriations subcommittee in March 2019.

According to NPR, the justices were designated as the court’s representatives — Kagan, appointed by President Obama, and Barrett, appointed by President Trump — reflecting the bipartisan nature of the security concerns.

Personal Stories of Fear

Justice Barrett shared two deeply personal stories that illustrated how threats have invaded her family life. She recounted how, following the leak of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization draft opinion in 2022, her security detail sent her home with a bulletproof vest.

“My 12-year-old son was standing in the doorway of my bedroom, and he wanted to know what it was,” Barrett testified, as reported by The Guardian. “I didn’t expect that performing this service was going to put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was and why I had to wear one.”

Barrett also described a “swatting” incident at her Virginia home approximately six weeks before the hearing. A false emergency call reporting gunshots and raised voices prompted a heavily armed police response. Her teenage son opened the door to find the street filled with police cars. Barrett said she was “very, very grateful” that Supreme Court police stationed outside her home were able to intercept the responding officers and explain it was a false alarm, preventing them from storming the residence.

Justice Kagan, meanwhile, drew a sharp distinction between legitimate criticism and intimidation. “Criticism is fair game. I mean, go for it,” she said, according to Courthouse News Service. “But intimidation is a different thing entirely. And when political figures of any stripe are trying to intimidate judges, that’s where we really have crossed the line.”

The Scale of the Threat

The numbers paint a stark picture. The Supreme Court Police expect a 38% increase in threats this year, following a 25% increase last year. The U.S. Marshals Service recorded 564 threats against federal judges in fiscal year 2025, up from 509 the year prior, and had already logged 241 threats in the first few months of 2026.

As Newsweek reported, the broader judiciary requested $920.9 million for security for FY2027, a 3.2% increase. The Supreme Court’s own $228 million request — a roughly 10% increase over the previous year’s $207.8 million appropriation — includes $14.6 million to expand personal protection for justices with six additional agents per justice, $2 million for an off-site residential security command post, $6.5 million for a new visitor screening facility, and $2.3 million for cybersecurity engineers.

A Broader Crisis in Judicial Security

The threats against the justices are part of a wider pattern. In 2022, a would-be assassin was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home with weapons and zip ties; he was sentenced to eight years in prison in 2025. Packages bearing the name of slain U.S. District Judge Esther Salas’ son — murdered in 2020 by a gunman targeting the judge — have been sent to multiple federal judges as intimidation tactics.

Chief Justice John Roberts has condemned the threats, saying “personally directed hostility is dangerous, and it’s got to stop.” But the roots of the crisis run deep. Charles Gardner Geyh, a law professor at Indiana University, told Newsweek that political rhetoric has escalated the danger. “President Trump has ramped up his attacks on lower court judges who enjoin his executive orders, calling them radicals and monsters,” Geyh said. “And he has attacked Supreme Court justices who rule against him, which incites his base to threaten the judges he singles out.”

Ethics and the Shadow Docket

The hearing also touched on the Supreme Court’s ethics practices. Rep. Rosa DeLauro pressed the justices on the court’s voluntary code of conduct, adopted in 2023, calling it “woefully insufficient” without an enforcement mechanism. Kagan expressed openness to a panel of retired judges enforcing ethics rules, while Barrett was more skeptical, questioning who would select the judges and how the panel would be composed.

Lawmakers also questioned the justices about the court’s increasing use of its emergency docket — often called the “shadow docket” — to issue rulings without full briefing or argument. Kagan acknowledged the terminology was a “nightmare” but argued the court had improved at explaining its emergency rulings.

What Comes Next

Congress must pass a new spending bill for FY2027 by September 30. While the bipartisan nature of the security request suggests significant portions will be approved, some Republican lawmakers have expressed skepticism. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana told Fox News: “There’s not a money fairy up here. This money that we appropriate comes out of people’s pockets or we have to borrow it.”

Yet as Justice Kagan warned, the threat is not abstract. “For some of us, those threats have come very close,” she said, “and all of us live with the knowledge that they may again materialize.”