Two US Supreme Court justices made a rare appearance before Congress this week, testifying in favour of a significant increase in security funding after a sustained rise in threats against members of the nation's highest court. Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan appeared before a House appropriations subcommittee — the first time sitting justices have testified on Capitol Hill since 2019 — to advocate for a $228m budget for the coming fiscal year, roughly 10% higher than current levels. Of that total, $14.6m would fund expanded personal protection, adding six more security agents per justice, while a further $2m would establish an off-site residential security post.

Barrett spoke in unusually personal terms about how the escalating threat environment has affected her family. She described bringing a bulletproof vest home and being confronted by her then-12-year-old son, who wanted to know what it was and why she needed it. She also recounted a recent swatting incident — in which someone made a false emergency report to police — at her home, where one of her teenage sons opened the front door to find the street filled with police cars responding to fabricated reports of gunshots. Currently, each justice is assigned between four and eight members of a security detail, a number that rises during periods of heightened individual threat. The US Marshals Service, which protects federal judges more broadly, reports that nearly 300 judges face threats this year alone. The threat level intensified notably after the 2022 leak of the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade; that same year, a man carrying weapons was arrested near the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Both justices condemned political rhetoric that they said inflamed public hostility toward the court. Kagan was direct in her criticism, stating that attempts by political figures of any party to pressure or intimidate judges crossed a fundamental line — not only because of the personal danger involved, but because such pressure threatened the independence of a co-equal branch of government. Senators from both parties echoed the concern, with several describing such rhetoric as unacceptable regardless of political affiliation.

The hearing also touched on questions of judicial accountability. Democratic lawmakers pressed the justices on ethics oversight, a topic that has gained prominence since Justice Clarence Thomas came under scrutiny in 2023 for accepting undisclosed luxury travel and vacations from a conservative Republican donor. The court adopted a voluntary code of conduct that year, but several lawmakers argued it lacked enforcement mechanisms. Both Kagan and Barrett acknowledged the value of an independent ethics process, though they differed on how it should be structured and who should oversee it. Representative Rosa DeLauro noted that every other federal court has an oversight committee — the Supreme Court alone does not.

The unusual session was notable not only for its substance but its tone. In a political environment marked by sharp institutional conflict, the exchange between justices and lawmakers was widely described as substantive and respectful — a reminder, observers noted, of what inter-branch dialogue can look like when focused on shared institutional concerns rather than partisan point-scoring.