Barrett and Kagan Take Court Security Case to Congress

Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan will appear before a House spending panel Tuesday as the federal judiciary seeks $920.9 million for the system that protects judges, court employees, jurors and public courthouses.

The joint appearance puts two justices who often divide on major cases behind the same witness table. The House Appropriations Committee hearing notice lists both as witnesses before the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee at 10 a.m. on July 14.

The threat caseload is now a budget driver

The judiciary’s fiscal 2027 Court Security request records a sharp deterioration in the threat environment. Hostile communications directed at the judiciary increased by more than 50% during fiscal 2025.

The U.S. Marshals Service logged 808 incidents of significant concern involving potential threats, violence or danger directed at federal judges. After initial investigation, 564 were classified as threats to specific judges.

Those figures describe an investigative workload as well as a physical-security problem. A threatening message can require identity checks, digital tracing, coordination with local police, home assessments and a decision on whether a judge needs temporary or sustained protection.

The federal judiciary has also documented four judges and three family members killed in targeted attacks since 1979. The protection system therefore extends beyond courthouse entrances to homes, travel, high-risk trials and the personal routines of judges whose decisions can provoke national anger.

📰 Read Also: Amy Coney Barrett Breaks From Trump on 3 of 13 Big Rulings

The $920.9 million request covers a national network

The requested appropriation is not a private security account for nine Supreme Court justices. It supports security across courts of appeals, district courts and other federal judicial facilities where defendants, witnesses, lawyers, jurors, employees and members of the public move through the same buildings.

The proposed amount is about $28.9 million above the $892 million enacted for fiscal 2026. Most of the money pays for facility operations, contracted court security officers, services supplied through other federal agencies, access systems, cameras and equipment replacement.

The Marshals Service has primary responsibility for protecting the federal judiciary. The Federal Protective Service handles functions that can include perimeter patrols, entry screening, garage control and inspection of mail and packages at government-controlled buildings.

Courthouses cannot operate like sealed intelligence compounds. Criminal defendants must appear, jurors must report, reporters and relatives attend proceedings, and the public retains a right of access to much of the judicial process.

Every additional barrier has to be weighed against a court’s obligation to remain open.

📰 Read Also: Federal Election Pressure Moves From Courts to Funding

Two years of flat funding delayed basic replacements

The budget documents describe a maintenance backlog that received less attention than threats against individual justices. Flat funding in fiscal 2024 and 2025 substantially delayed replacement of physical-access-control systems used to manage doors, credentials and restricted areas.

Funding for those systems was restored to $45.1 million in fiscal 2026, allowing the judiciary to resume replacement of outdated equipment. Video-management projects remained on hold while the Marshals Service concentrated resources on access controls.

A delayed camera or badge-system replacement does not produce a dramatic public event. It creates a growing inventory of aging devices across buildings with different layouts, ownership arrangements and local risks.

The requested increase also reflects higher contract wages, federal service charges and costs attached to new or renovated facilities. Security spending can climb even when the number of courthouses changes little because guards, technology and maintenance contracts become more expensive each year.

📰 Read Also: Trump Faces Narrow Path on Birthright Citizenship

Congress controls protection while questioning the Court

Barrett and Kagan arrive from different parts of the Court’s ideological map, but security gives them a common institutional position. Threats do not follow the Court’s internal voting blocs, and protection cannot be divided by judicial philosophy.

The setting also exposes a constitutional tension without requiring a dispute over a specific ruling. The judiciary controls cases, courtroom procedure and internal administration, while Congress controls the appropriations that pay for guards, equipment and federal support.

Lawmakers have pressed the Court over ethics, disclosure, recusal and public confidence. The justices, in turn, have defended the separation of powers and resisted forms of oversight they consider intrusive.

A budget hearing reverses the direction of leverage: the Court must document an operational need and persuade elected officials to pay for it.

The hearing is unlikely to produce detailed public answers about protective intelligence, home-security measures or vulnerabilities at particular buildings. Revealing those details would weaken the safeguards Congress is being asked to finance.

Appropriators can still examine staffing gaps, equipment backlogs, coordination failures and whether the judiciary is measuring results. The strongest public record may come from the numbers attached to unfinished projects and unresolved threat investigations rather than exchanges over recent opinions.

TL;DR

• Barrett and Kagan are scheduled to testify together before a House Appropriations subcommittee on July 14.

• The federal judiciary is requesting $920.9 million for court security in fiscal 2027.

• Hostile communications rose by more than 50% in fiscal 2025.

• The Marshals Service recorded 808 incidents of significant concern, including 564 threats to specific judges.

• Flat funding delayed replacement of courthouse access-control and video-management systems.

Read More

• Sullivan & Cromwell’s Trump Role Expands

• Kennedy Center Whistleblowers Allege Rushed Renovations

• DOJ Threatens Milwaukee Over Federal Agent Mask Ban