Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett asked Congress Tuesday for millions more in security funding — the same federal government that leaves ordinary Americans to fend for themselves in neighborhoods it can't or won't protect.
The justices want $14.6 million to expand personal protection, including six additional agents per justice, plus $2 million for a residential security coordination office. The total court budget request: $228 million, a roughly 10% increase. The broader judiciary is asking for nearly $921 million in security overall, a $29 million bump over last year. Nobody should face assassination attempts, and the threats are real. But the disconnect is stark: nine unelected lawyers get round-the-clock protection teams and dedicated residential security, while the average American gets a 911 dial tone and a prayer.
Kagan told the House Appropriations subcommittee that Supreme Court Police reported an estimated 38% increase in threats this year, on top of a 25% jump last year. The U.S. Marshals Service logged 564 threats against federal judges in the last fiscal year. Security incidents the Marshals classified as of "significant concern" jumped 57% in 2025, according to CNN.
"For some of us, those threats have come very close, and all of us live with the knowledge that they may again materialize," Kagan said. "But, as the Chief Justice has said, all members of the Court continue to do their jobs as they believe legally right, adjudicating cases without fear or favor."
The specific incidents are sobering. Barrett's home was swatted in May. Her sister was the target of a bomb threat in Charleston, South Carolina. In 2022, an armed assailant was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh's home with weapons and zip ties, shortly after the leak of the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. That assailant was sentenced to just over eight years in prison.
Kagan noted that when she joined the court in 2010, only the chief justice had a dedicated security detail. Now every justice has round-the-clock protection. She said stepped-up security accounts for most of the court's average 15% annual budget increases.
CNN framed the hearing as justices "demanding" more security. The New York Times focused on Kagan's personal testimony about threats. The Washington Examiner noted — and most outlets buried — that Barrett is likely to face questions from Republican lawmakers over her birthright citizenship vote against a Trump priority. That is the oversight that actually matters, and it's the kind Congress rarely exercises.
This was the first time justices testified before Congress since 2019. Until 2011, at least one justice appeared annually. Since then: three appearances total. The judiciary operates with less congressional scrutiny than a mid-size federal agency, yet its rulings reshape American life. Chief Justice John Roberts condemned threats against judges in March, saying personally directed hostility is "dangerous, and it's got to stop." He said this after President Donald Trump criticized the justices for striking down his tariffs. Criticism of public officials is not the same as violence, and conflating the two is a convenient way to dodge accountability.
Nobody disputes that justices face genuine danger. The question Congress won't ask: why does the same government that provides round-the-clock protection for nine unelected lawyers tell millions of Americans that their safety is their own problem?
