Justice Amy Coney Barrett told the House Appropriations Committee that the uptick in threats against her and fellow Supreme Court justices has taken a toll on her children. Barrett testified Tuesday during the court's first appearance before Congress since 2019, urging lawmakers to approve increased security funding as part of the court's fiscal year 2027 budget request.
Barrett shared how her security detail gave her a bulletproof vest to wear, and one day when she brought it into her bedroom, her 12-year-old son asked what it was. "And I didn't know how to respond because maybe I lack imagination, but 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 told the committee.
The justice recounted how her family's life drastically changed following the leaked Dobbs decision in 2022, which ruled that abortion was not a constitutional right. She said threats on her life intensified after that ruling. Barrett also testified about a swatting incident at her home in May, where someone falsely reported gunshots. Her teenage son and his friends were the first to discover police surrounding their residence.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive Democrats largely supported the court's security funding request during the hearing, with several lawmakers expressing concern about threats against judicial officials. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., who serves on the Appropriations Committee, has previously advocated for enhanced protections for federal judges and prosecutors following high-profile attacks.
"Threats against judges undermine the independence of the judiciary itself," said a statement from progressive advocacy group Fix the Court. "When justices cannot perform their constitutional duties without fearing for their families' safety, all Americans suffer." The organization noted that security improvements should apply equally across the federal judiciary, not just the Supreme Court.
Some Democratic lawmakers used the hearing to argue that broader cultural divisions in American politics contribute to the threat environment facing judges. They pointed to rhetoric around court packing and recent protests outside justices' homes as factors that have elevated tensions since the Dobbs decision.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative Republicans defended the court's security request while criticizing what they described as a dangerous escalation in threats against conservative jurists. Several GOP committee members expressed particular concern about packages being sent to justices in the name of Daniel Anderl, the son of U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas, who was killed in 2020.
"This is not about partisan politics — this is about protecting dedicated public servants and their families," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who has championed judicial security legislation. "Judge Salas lost her son because a deranged individual targeted her through her family. We cannot allow that to happen again."
Conservative commentators argued the threats stem primarily from activist groups targeting conservative justices. The Federalist Society's leadership has called for enhanced security measures and criticized what they describe as rhetoric from progressive activists that contributes to an atmosphere of hostility toward conservative jurists.
What the Numbers Show
The Supreme Court is requesting approximately $89 million total for personal security costs in fiscal year 2027, representing a 10% budget increase overall. Of the requested $20.7 million increase, roughly $16.6 million — about 80% — would be dedicated to expanding security for justices.
Justice Elena Kagan testified that threats against the court have increased 35% just in 2026, compared to a 25% increase the prior year. When she joined the court in 2010, justices did not receive around-the-clock personal protection; the court's police primarily guarded the building and she only had security during work-related public events.
The heightened focus on judicial security began after Justice Antonin Scalia's death in 2016. Scalia died while on a hunting trip in Texas, hours away from any security personnel, after declining a private security detail for that trip. Following pressure from Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Elijah Cummings, D-Md., Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged the court needed to improve its security posture.
The Bottom Line
The hearing underscored growing bipartisan concern about threats against federal judges, though questions remain about whether additional funding alone can address the underlying causes of judicial intimidation. The Supreme Court is expected to receive significant portions of its requested security increase, though final budget negotiations will determine exact allocations.
What happens next: Congress must pass a continuing resolution or full appropriations bill before the new fiscal year begins October 1. Watch for any amendments targeting broader judiciary security beyond just the Supreme Court. The packages sent in Daniel Anderl's name remain under investigation by federal authorities.