Supreme Court's ideological rivals deliver same alarming message after wave of death threats

WASHINGTON, DC: Liberal Justice Elena Kagan and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered a rare bipartisan warning before Congress on Tuesday, June 14, presenting a united front over what they described as an alarming rise in threats against members of the US Supreme Court.

Despite sitting on opposite ideological ends of the bench, both justices urged lawmakers to bolster funding for the Supreme Court Police, saying escalating intimidation has fundamentally changed the way the Court operates.

The unusual joint appearance comes after years of heightened political tensions surrounding the Supreme Court, particularly following the 2022 leak of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v Wade. Since then, justices have faced protests outside their homes, assassination threats, swatting incidents and harassment campaigns that have prompted expanded security measures.

Threats climb at alarming pace

Opening the House budget hearing, Kagan said the Supreme Court Police are confronting an unprecedented security environment.

She revealed that threats against justices have risen 38% this year, following a 25% increase last year, arguing that the Court's growing security needs are impossible to ignore.

"For some of us, those threats have come very close, and all of us live with the knowledge that they may again materialize," Kagan told lawmakers.

Even so, she emphasized that the Court continues deciding cases based solely on the law rather than outside pressure.

"But, as the Chief Justice has said, all members of the Court continue to do their jobs as they believe legally right, adjudicating cases without fear or favor," she said.

Kagan noted that neither she nor Barrett would discuss pending cases, focusing instead on the practical challenges posed by escalating security concerns.

Barrett recounts bulletproof vest ordeal

Barrett offered one of the hearing's most personal moments while describing the precautions her family has been forced to take.

She recalled that, following the leak of the Dobbs draft opinion, security officials sent her home with a bulletproof vest because threats against her life had intensified.

"My security detail sent me home with a bulletproof vest," Barrett said.

The experience became especially difficult when her then-12-year-old son noticed it.

"He asked what it was and why I had it," she told lawmakers, illustrating how threats against justices now affect their families as well as the justices themselves.

Swatting and intimidation continue

Barrett also disclosed that her home was swatted just six weeks ago.

She said one of her teenage sons opened the front door to leave with friends only to find the street filled with police officers responding to a false report of gunfire and violence inside the family's home.

Fortunately, Supreme Court Police officers already assigned to protect Barrett were present and quickly determined the report was false.

She also described receiving anonymous deliveries intended to intimidate members of the Court. Some packages, Barrett said, were deliberately sent in the name of Daniel Anderl, the son of US District Judge Esther Salas, who was fatally shot in 2020 after a gunman posing as a delivery driver came to the family's New Jersey home.

"I think the message on these deliveries being sent in his name is clear," Barrett said.

Rare unity across ideological divide

Although Kagan and Barrett frequently find themselves on opposite sides of the Court's most consequential rulings, Tuesday's hearing showcased an uncommon moment of agreement.

Both justices argued that protecting the Court's independence requires ensuring its members can perform their constitutional duties without fear of violence or intimidation.

Their testimony arrives as Congress weighs funding requests for the Supreme Court Police and follows several years of mounting concern over security surrounding federal judges nationwide.

By presenting a unified appeal, Barrett and Kagan signaled that safeguarding the judiciary has become an issue transcending ideology, with both warning lawmakers that the threat environment facing the nation's highest court has entered a troubling new phase.