Kagan and Barrett Tell Congress Threats Against Judges Are 'Really High' as Court Seeks Security Funds

Two Supreme Court justices made a rare appearance before Congress on Tuesday, telling lawmakers that the threat level against federal judges has climbed to alarming heights and appealing for a substantial increase in funding to protect the judiciary. The testimony from Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett offered an unusual public window into the security fears now shadowing the nation's courts.

Appearing before a House appropriations subcommittee, the justices backed the judiciary's request for $228.4 million for fiscal 2027, a nearly 10 percent increase over the $207.8 million appropriated for 2026. Much of the additional money, they said, would go toward security-related measures for judges who have increasingly become targets of intimidation and violence. Justice Barrett told the panel bluntly that "the threat level" against her and other federal judges "is really high."

The joint appearance was notable in itself. Supreme Court justices rarely testify before Congress, and the sight of two members of the court — one appointed by a Democratic president, the other by a Republican — jointly pressing lawmakers for resources underscored the seriousness with which the institution views the surge in threats. The justices largely avoided the ideological flashpoints that have defined recent terms, focusing instead on the practical dangers facing the people who staff and protect the courts.

The plea comes against a backdrop of escalating hostility toward the judiciary. Judges across the country have reported a rising tide of threats, doxxing and harassment, and several high-profile cases have prompted heightened protective measures. The concerns have only sharpened amid repeated clashes between the executive branch and the courts, as judges have found themselves at the center of politically charged disputes and, at times, the target of pointed public criticism from elected officials.

Lawmakers on the subcommittee are weighing the request as part of the broader appropriations process, and the justices' personal involvement is likely to lend weight to the judiciary's case. Funding for court security has historically drawn bipartisan support, and the framing of the increase as a matter of physical safety rather than judicial philosophy may help insulate it from partisan wrangling.

Whether Congress grants the full amount remains to be seen as appropriators juggle competing priorities. But the message from the justices was unmistakable: the people who decide the nation's most consequential legal questions increasingly feel unsafe doing so, and they have taken the rare step of saying so directly to the lawmakers who hold the purse strings.