Justice Barrett describes security threats impacting her children
(CNN) — Justice Amy Coney Barrett plea for additional security funding for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, using a pair of rare hearings before Congress to address for the first time personal threats that have been directed against her and her family.
Barrett, who was joined Tuesday by Justice Elena Kagan in requesting millions more for judiciary security, recalled two incidents 鈥� a recent swatting attempt at her home and court security issuing her a bulletproof vest when, she said, threats against her were 鈥減articularly intense.鈥�
鈥淚 didn鈥檛 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,鈥� Barrett told a House appropriations subcommittee.
Barrett, a conservative, and Kagan, a liberal, also took questions about the court鈥檚 code of ethics, its use of the emergency docket and diversity within the judiciary in meetings with House and Senate lawmakers. But the justices came prepared to focus mostly on their safety, and several lawmakers indicated they would support the requested influx of cash for that purpose amid a spike in threats against jurists.
Police in Washington鈥檚 Virginia suburbs said in May that they had been called to the home of a Supreme Court justice for what they determined was a 鈥渇ictitious鈥� report of gunfire. CNN later confirmed that Barrett鈥檚 home was targeted, though neither the justice nor the court had previously acknowledged the incident.
Barrett told lawmakers Tuesday that one of her teenage sons opened the door that evening to head out with friends and was confronted with an armada of police cars that 鈥渉ad responded to a false report of gun shots and raised voices in my home.鈥� Barrett said she was grateful that the Supreme Court police detail assigned to her home quickly communicated with local police so that they did not 鈥渁ttempt to enter our home.鈥�
鈥淢any of us have received threatening anonymous deliveries designed to intimidate and harass us,鈥� Barrett said.
The nearly $921 million for security overall, a $29 million increase compared to last year, including for frontline security forces at federal courthouses. The ask includes an increase of nearly $15 million to make members of the Supreme Court Police available to protect the justices and their families, including at their homes. It also includes $6 million for a planned structure in which to conduct security screening before visitors enter the Supreme Court building.
Grilled on ethics
In addition to the focus on security, several lawmakers pressed the justices on the code of ethics the that was a response to a series of ethics scandals but has been widely criticized for lacking teeth.
鈥淚t鈥檚 entirely self-policing,鈥� complained Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat.
鈥淓very other body has that,鈥� DeLauro said of an enforcement mechanism. 鈥淚t鈥檚 just the Supreme Court that doesn鈥檛.鈥�
DeLauro鈥檚 questioning led to a fascinating exchange between Kagan and Barrett that was repeated during a Senate hearing hours later. While acknowledging the practical difficulties, Kagan said that she would support a code of ethics for the high court with some type of enforcement mechanism. Barrett said that she wasn鈥檛 as sure.
鈥淚鈥檓 less certain,鈥� Barrett said, while adding that she was 鈥渇ully committed to the code.鈥�
Major ethics scandals involving justices have largely subsided from view since a series of reports three years ago documented how some justices 鈥� notably conservative Justice Clarence Thomas 鈥� accepted , often without disclosing those trips. But given how rarely the justices appear before lawmakers, the hearing Tuesday offered the first opportunity Congress has had to press justices on the issue.
Kagan acknowledged, as she has in the past, that she believes there should be some enforcement mechanism. But she also acknowledged that it鈥檚 difficult to figure out how to police the nine justices who sit atop the federal judiciary.
鈥淚 will say that鈥檚 an extremely difficult question for a pretty obvious reason,鈥� Kagan said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think that you鈥檇 want an enforcement system that is controlled by the executive branch or by the legislature.鈥�
Some outside experts have suggested that the court could rely on retired judges, or a panel of judges, to review complaints or questionable practices. Kagan said that enforcement would almost certainly have to come from within the judiciary, but that such a system would open other questions.
鈥淭hat鈥檚 hard,鈥� Kagan said. 鈥淏ecause we sit at the top of the judiciary.鈥�
And that is the part Barrett zeroed in on.
鈥淚鈥檓 just not quite sure,鈥� Barrett said, noting the complexity of choosing who would serve on a panel to oversee ethical questions about the justices. 鈥淭here鈥檚 just a lot of complexity.鈥�
Gabe Roth with Fix the Court, a group that advocates for more transparency in the federal judiciary, said it was 鈥渄isheartening鈥� that the court had not done more to bolster its code of ethics since it was first rolled out.
鈥淚t may be 鈥榙ifficult,鈥� as Justice Barrett said today, to devise an enforcement scheme that fits within constitutional bounds,鈥� he said. 鈥淏ut it鈥檚 not impossible.鈥�
On a related matter, Kagan and Barrett addressed a series of letters that have been submitted to judicial officials 鈥� including Chief Justice John Roberts 鈥� from lawmakers about whether courts have barred jurists and staff from betting in prediction markets in cases before them.
Speaking to the issue for the first time, the justices said that the current code of ethics covers that issue and prohibits judiciary employees from taking part in those markets.
SCOTUS police
Security incidents involving judges that the Marshals Service classified as of 鈥渟ignificant concern鈥� jumped 57% in 2025. Kagan also spoke to the security posture at the high court in an unusually personal tenor.
鈥淚 first joined the court in 2010. Our security was much different at that time,鈥� Kagan said. 鈥淚 did not have a security team of my own, and was accompanied by security personnel only when I participated in work-related, public events.鈥�
In discussing security for court, the justices both spoke at length about the need to bolster their own police force and move away from relying on deputy US Marshals to fill those gaps 鈥� particularly at the justices鈥� homes.
As security needs have increased for justices in recent years, particularly since the , the Marshals Service 鈥� already facing strains of its own 鈥� has supplemented personal security for the nine justices.
Kagan told lawmakers that the Justice Department informed them that the Marshals Service would be unable to continue running personal protection for the justices much faster than had been expected.
鈥淲e thought that we were going to have US Marshal protection at our residences for another six months,鈥� Kagan told senators during the afternoon hearing.
Kagan said that 鈥渁ll of a sudden鈥� the Supreme Court 鈥渓earned from the Justice Department that that was going to be impossible, and so we had to do some sort of quick footwork to try to get additional monies in order to cover that six-month gap.鈥�
But sources with the Marshals Service have previously advocated for the Supreme Court鈥檚 own police force to take on that personal security, which, the sources said, was initially met with resistance from the court police because of its limited budget.
鈥淣othing against the US Marshals who do a terrific job,鈥� Kagan added, 鈥渂ut I think this allows us to 鈥� whenever we make, have to make, a policy decision about how to use our security personnel, it鈥檚 our policy decision. We don鈥檛 have to convince anybody else.鈥�
The highest-profile incident involving a Supreme Court justice took place in 2022, when a Californian who now identifies as Sophie Roske flew across the country and appeared in Justice Brett Kavanaugh鈥檚 neighborhood with a bag full of guns and other weapons intending to kill the justice. Roske last year was and a lifetime of supervised release.
A number of senators questioned whether President Donald Trump鈥檚 sharp criticism of the court, in particular, had jeopardized security for the justices. Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, said that he felt Trump鈥檚 鈥渂ehavior is very dangerous to the court and to our whole system.鈥�
Kagan said she agreed with the concerns about the statements generally but was careful not to peg the blame on any one person.
鈥淲here ever these come from and whatever political figure says them 鈥hese statements are really unhelpful,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e dangerous, in terms of individual justice鈥檚 security, and they鈥檙e not appropriate.鈥�
Democrats ask about shadow docket rulings
The hearing was an opportunity, particularly for Democrats, to quiz the justices on a series of important emergency docket decisions last summer that favored Trump and allowed his administration to move forward with policies in the short term while courts considered their legality.
The emergency docket 鈥� or the 鈥渟hadow docket鈥� to the court鈥檚 critics 鈥� involves short-term resolution of cases without oral argument or written opinions. Often the court does not explain its vote count in those decisions, which although temporary can have profound consequences.
Rep. Glenn Ivey, a Maryland Democrat, voiced that frustration during one exchange 鈥� suggesting that the court appeared to be putting greater weight on the potential impact of shutting down a White House policy than on the potential impact for federal employees, grant recipients or others affected by that agenda. Ivey represents a district outside of Washington, DC, with many federal workers who lost their jobs in the second Trump administration.
鈥淚 guess some of the justices thought that this didn鈥檛 constitute irreparable harm,鈥� Ivey said. 鈥淵ou know, it was pretty damaging from the perspective of them.鈥�
鈥淲e have seen a big change in the volume and the nature of such requests,鈥� Barrett said. 鈥淭he court is doing its best to adapt and respond.鈥�
Kagan offered a much more frank assessment of the court鈥檚 handling of such requests made through its emergency docket. She acknowledged that there have at times been 鈥渋ssues鈥� with how those requests are resolved but that the nine justices have gotten better at ensuring that their decisions are more fully spelled out in such cases.
鈥淭here were some cases where we did so little explanation of what lay behind our order that lower courts had a great deal of difficulty trying to figure out what that order was,鈥� Kagan said.
Kagan homage to Lindsey Graham
As she began her remarks to both subcommittees, Kagan honored the late Sen. Lindsey Graham, noting that the South Carolina Republican had not only voted for her confirmation in 2010 but also took seriously his role in meeting with and questioning her after she was nominated by President Barack Obama.
As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Graham had an outsized role in questioning many of the current justices.
Kagan also mentioned a viral moment from her confirmation hearing when Graham had asked Kagan where she was the previous Christmas. Like all members of the Jewish faith, Kagan responded, she was 鈥減robably at a Chinese restaurant.鈥� The committee room erupted into laughter at Kagan鈥檚 response. 鈥淕reat answer,鈥� Graham responded.
鈥淢any people said to me afterwards that exchange with Senator Graham was the moment my confirmation was sealed,鈥� Kagan told the House lawmakers Tuesday. 鈥淚 never got to know Senator Graham very well, but I can see why so many people will deeply miss him.鈥�
This story has been updated with additional details from the hearings.
The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
