Bomb Threats, Backyards, And A $921M Ask

Two Supreme Court justices walked into Congress and calmly described bomb threats, swatting, and armed men in backyards—then asked lawmakers if that sounded like “enough” security.

Story Snapshot

Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett made a rare trip to Capitol Hill to ask for more security money.
The judiciary wants nearly $921 million for security, including almost $15 million focused on Supreme Court justices and their families.
Threats against judges and justices have climbed for years, with specific incidents hitting their homes and loved ones.
Congress has boosted Supreme Court security, but many lower court judges still wait for equal protection.

Two Ideological Opposites, One Message: We Are Not Safe Enough

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Elena Kagan do not agree on much when it comes to law, but they showed up side by side on June 6, 2023 with one shared warning: threats against the Supreme Court and the wider judiciary are rising, and current protections are not keeping pace.

Their appearance itself was a signal. Supreme Court justices almost never testify before Congress; this was the first time since 2019. When the most guarded judges in America leave the marble building to ask for help, it tells you something about the level of risk.

The two justices backed a judiciary request for nearly $921 million in security funding, a $29 million jump over last year. About $15 million of that would be dedicated to making Supreme Court Police officers available to guard the nine justices and their families, including at their homes.

Another slice would fund a new screening structure outside the Court to check visitors before they ever step inside the building. Everything about the request pointed to one theme: danger is shifting from the courtroom to the front porch.

From “Swatting” To Bomb Threats: Security Moves From Theory To Reality

Justice Barrett pointed to threats that hit close to home—literally. News reports describe a “swatting” incident where police were sent to her house on a false report of gunfire, plus a bomb threat aimed at her sister’s home.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh faced an intruder from California carrying guns, knives, ammunition, and zip ties in his backyard. These are not angry tweets. Someone crossed the line from talk to action, and they did so at private homes, where children sleep and families live.

Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan pleaded for more security funding – saying they face an alarming rise in threats. It comes after police arrested a man they say had a gun and asked for directions to the Supreme Court. Jay O'Brien reports. https://t.co/l4TqTNTlDQ pic.twitter.com/tF2MTliPJ6

— World News Tonight (@ABCWorldNews) July 15, 2026

Justice Kagan added numbers to Barrett’s stories. She cited testimony from the Capitol Police chief that threats against members of Congress rose fifty percent in one year, and said Supreme Court Police expect a thirty-eight percent increase in threats this year on top of a twenty-five percent jump last year.

We do not yet have public data to verify that thirty-eight percent figure, which deserves a closer look, but the Marshals Service has confirmed hundreds of threats against federal judges in recent years. The pattern is clear enough: judges are not just controversial; they are targets.

Dobbs, Leaks, And A Toxic National Mood

Security officials point back to 2022, when the draft opinion in the Dobbs abortion case leaked and protesters began gathering outside justices’ homes.

After that leak, personal security was expanded from the Chief Justice out to all members of the Court. That change was not about hurt feelings; it reflected a new reality where people know where justices live, can organize online, and can show up in minutes.

Social media accelerates outrage, and our politics reward it. That broader toxic climate matters, but from this view, it does not excuse leaving the third branch of government exposed.

Threats against the wider federal judiciary have also surged. A federal research report notes that the 2020 murder of a New Jersey judge’s son at their home led to nationwide calls for stronger protection of judges and families.

The American Bar Association reports the judiciary now cites “evolving risks” and a “significant increase in threats” as reasons for larger security budgets.

There is a clear trend line: more anger, more targeting, more pressure on the men and women who are supposed to decide cases based on law, not fear.

Who Gets Protected And Who Waits In Line?

Congress has moved in fits and starts. Lawmakers approved a $30 million boost for Supreme Court security in a last-minute deal to end a shutdown, providing additional funding for the continuous protection of the nine justices. At the same time, many lower court judges, who also report rising threats, did not receive matching increases.

One Washington Post analysis bluntly noted that “only the Supreme Court got new security funds,” even as judicial leaders asked for another $142 million to secure lower courts. That gap creates a fairness problem and a practical one.

Republican lawmakers have pushed targeted bills to protect Supreme Court justices, sometimes omitting lower-court judges in the fine print. Supporters argue the Supreme Court is uniquely visible and polarizing, especially after major decisions, so extra focus is justified.

That case is understandable, but the absence of full protection farther down the ladder invites resentment and raises a hard question: if threats are rising across the judiciary, why isn’t every judge’s front door worth guarding?

Real Threats, Real Money, And The Need For Oversight

The Supreme Court’s budget papers use tight, serious language: “ongoing evaluations of threats reveal changing risks that necessitate ongoing protection.” That line summarizes their pitch. They are not saying they want comfort; they are saying the threat picture is changing, and security must change with it. Critics do raise fair points.

There is no public, detailed threat assessment from Supreme Court Police that breaks down the numbers Kagan cited. There is also no independent audit that proves every dollar of the requested $25.4 million or $30 million is strictly needed for threat response.

Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett pitched increased security funding for the Supreme Court next year at a pair of rare congressional hearings for sitting justices Tuesday that covered issues ranging from emergency cases to judicial ethics.https://t.co/KBGpgFlXmC

— Roll Call (@rollcall) July 14, 2026

Those gaps do not erase the risk, but they do point to the next step. A serious Congress should pair higher security funding with hard-nosed oversight: independent audits by the Government Accountability Office, public threat reports with redactions for safety, and clear comparisons across Supreme Court and lower courts.

You protect judges from violence, you do not bow to mobs, and you demand proof that every new dollar is tied to that job. Barrett and Kagan came to the Hill with a warning. Lawmakers now have to decide whether to treat it as a headline—or as a duty.