Justices Kagan and Barrett discuss security, emergency docket and ethics in rare appearance before Congress

CNN

By John Fritze, Devan Cole, Holmes Lybrand, CNN

(CNN) — Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered an unusually personal 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 – a recent swatting attempt at her home and court security issuing her a bulletproof vest when, she said, threats against her were “particularly intense.”

“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 a House appropriations subcommittee.

Barrett, a conservative, and Kagan, a liberal, also took questions about the court’s 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’s Virginia suburbs said in May that they had been called to the home of a Supreme Court justice for what they determined was a “fictitious” report of gunfire. CNN later confirmed that Barrett’s 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 “had responded to a false report of gun shots and raised voices in my home.” 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 “attempt to enter our home.”

“Many of us have received threatening anonymous deliveries designed to intimidate and harass us,” Barrett said.

The judiciary has requested 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 Supreme Court adopted in 2023 that was a response to a series of ethics scandals but has been widely criticized for lacking teeth.

“It’s entirely self-policing,” complained Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat.

“Every other body has that,” DeLauro said of an enforcement mechanism. “It’s just the Supreme Court that doesn’t.”

DeLauro’s 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’t as sure.

“I’m less certain,” Barrett said, while adding that she was “fully committed to the code.”

Major ethics scandals involving justices have largely subsided from view since a series of reports three years ago documented how some justices — notably conservative Justice Clarence Thomas — accepted luxury travel, 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’s difficult to figure out how to police the nine justices who sit atop the federal judiciary.

“I will say that’s an extremely difficult question for a pretty obvious reason,” Kagan said. “I don’t think that you’d want an enforcement system that is controlled by the executive branch or by the legislature.”

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.

“That’s hard,” Kagan said. “Because we sit at the top of the judiciary.”

And that is the part Barrett zeroed in on.

“I’m just not quite sure,” Barrett said, noting the complexity of choosing who would serve on a panel to oversee ethical questions about the justices. “There’s just a lot of complexity.”

Gabe Roth with Fix the Court, a group that advocates for more transparency in the federal judiciary, said it was “disheartening” that the court had not done more to bolster its code of ethics since it was first rolled out.

“It may be ‘difficult,’ as Justice Barrett said today, to devise an enforcement scheme that fits within constitutional bounds,” he said. “But it’s not impossible.”

On a related matter, Kagan and Barrett addressed a series of letters that have been submitted to judicial officials – including Chief Justice John Roberts – 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 “significant concern” jumped 57% in 2025. Kagan also spoke to the security posture at the high court in an unusually personal tenor.

“I first joined the court in 2010. Our security was much different at that time,” Kagan said. “I did not have a security team of my own, and was accompanied by security personnel only when I participated in work-related, public events.”

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 – particularly at the justices’ homes.

As security needs have increased for justices in recent years, particularly since the leaking of the 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the Marshals Service – already facing strains of its own – 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.

“We thought that we were going to have US Marshal protection at our residences for another six months,” Kagan told senators during the afternoon hearing.

Kagan said that “all of a sudden” the Supreme Court “learned 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.”

But sources with the Marshals Service have previously advocated for the Supreme Court’s 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.

“Nothing against the US Marshals who do a terrific job,” Kagan added, “but I think this allows us to – whenever we make, have to make, a policy decision about how to use our security personnel, it’s our policy decision. We don’t have to convince anybody else.”

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’s neighborhood with a bag full of guns and other weapons intending to kill the justice. Roske last year was sentenced to just over 8 years in prison and a lifetime of supervised release.

A number of senators questioned whether President Donald Trump’s 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’s “behavior is very dangerous to the court and to our whole system.”

Kagan said she agreed with the concerns about the statements generally but was careful not to peg the blame on any one person.

“Where ever these come from and whatever political figure says them …these statements are really unhelpful,” she said. “They’re dangerous, in terms of individual justice’s security, and they’re not appropriate.”

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 – or the “shadow docket” to the court’s critics – 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 – 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.

“I guess some of the justices thought that this didn’t constitute irreparable harm,” Ivey said. “You know, it was pretty damaging from the perspective of them.”

“We have seen a big change in the volume and the nature of such requests,” Barrett said. “The court is doing its best to adapt and respond.”

Kagan offered a much more frank assessment of the court’s handling of such requests made through its emergency docket. She acknowledged that there have at times been “issues” 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.

“There 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,” 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 “probably at a Chinese restaurant.” The committee room erupted into laughter at Kagan’s response. “Great answer,” Graham responded.

“Many people said to me afterwards that exchange with Senator Graham was the moment my confirmation was sealed,” Kagan told the House lawmakers Tuesday. “I never got to know Senator Graham very well, but I can see why so many people will deeply miss him.”

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.