Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan testified before both chambers of Congress on Tuesday, explaining why they believe the Supreme Court needs an increase in its 2027 fiscal year budget.
The nation’s highest court is asking Congress to appropriate $228.4 million next year, a nearly 10% increase from the current $207.8 million.
They said the increase in funding is needed for additional security since threat levels against them and other federal judges are “really high.”
Barrett and Kagan are the first justices to testify before Congress since 2019 when Kagan and Justice Samuel Alito appeared.
Barrett detailed how after the Dobbs ruling was leaked before the decision was announced in 2022, her security detail gave her a bulletproof vest that her son later found. She said she had to explain to the 12-year-old about political violence and why she had the vest.
Barrett was recently part of a swatting incident, where someone called the police and reported hearing a gunshot and shouting coming from her home, prompting a large police presence that impacted her children.
The U.S. Marshals Service reports that since the start of 2026, there have been more than 500 investigations of threats to federal judges, an uptick from 800 for the entire 2025 year.
As it stands, each justice has between four to eight full-time security members who work in shifts around the clock to be with the justice in the public, at events and outside their homes.
They explained how Cabinet members are staffed with about 20 law enforcement officers and the increase in the budget would get them up to about 12 per justice for the round-the-clock watch.
The bulk of the increase in funds would pay for additional security, with new building space for cybersecurity experts, and the hiring of 12 new experts to deal with the “increasing threats to our court system,” Barrett said.
Artificial intelligence “is making it easier for people to find vulnerabilities and all entities’ systems and to exploit that, so we’re trying to keep up. ”
“I’m frankly amazed that we’ve done as well as we have up till now. If you think about the number of people who want to know what we say before we say it, the number of people who, millions and billions of dollars depend on it. Other ... nations might want to receive information before we publicly announce it,” Kagan added. “It’s sort of amazing to me that we’ve done as well as we have, but we ... want to make sure that that success record continues.”
Kagan: Dobbs leak upped security risks
Additionally, the justices were asked about where the court has some cracks, like the Dobbs leak in 2022 and several similar instances since then.
Kagan noted that the leaks “dramatically” increase security risks for the justices.
“It also dramatically changes the way we do our business internally, or at least has the potential to do so,” she said. “I mean, the way we relate to each other depends so much on honest communication among the nine of us. And if the nine of us don’t have trust in one another and don’t have trust in ... all the people who work for us, then those kinds of honest conversations that we need to do for business are not going to take place.”
Kagan also admitted after being questioned that following the Dobbs leak, they conducted a “serious internal investigation” and still have not come to a conclusion about how it was released to the public early.
She also noted that each justice has been frustrated by the leaks and how it impacts their personal security.
“Life has changed a great deal for all of us,” Barrett said.
This summer is expected to be a little quieter than summer 2025 for the justices. Trump, upon returning to office, immediately issued dozens of executive orders, many of which were immediately challenged in court, including through appeals to the justices through the emergency docket, also commonly referred to as the shadow docket.
Critics say there needs to be more transparency about the rulings that come from the shadow docket, since the justices don’t provide reasoning on why they rule a certain way.
The justices were questioned by Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., about what if a shadow docket ruling overturns a precedent. Shouldn’t the justices offer up some explanation of that decision and where things stand, Van Hollen asked.
Kagan said it was a complicated question and most of the time, discussing whether to take up an emergency application, they are “talking about the likely prospects of success, not that something will succeed, but that a claim is likely to succeed.”
“I think that the court itself has been of a little bit mixed mind on that question, and so I think it’s a completely fair inquiry and one that we need to keep thinking about and keep on top of,” she said.
The justices were also pressed by senators about their code of conduct and how it’s self-governing and self-enforced, with several Democrats on both committees expressing concerns about it.
“For example, it essentially allows justices to decide for themselves whether or not they are engaging in a political activity or accepting inappropriate gifts. I know you’ve been asked this at both in the House, and a number of people here have mentioned it, but I want to add my name and voice to the fact that we need, and our constituents need, to know that you have a code of ethics, that you are held to high standards, because that again, is about transparency and it is about returning confidence to the court decisions,” Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said.
The long day for the justices answering questions about their budget request wasn’t without a few lighthearted moments, too.
They joked with the senators about how it’s normally them sitting behind a big desk asking people questions and they were in the hot seat now. Sen. John Boozman, R-Mont., noted, they weren’t hearing an argument, but instead delivering an argument.
“I think so far you’re doing very well,” Boozman said.
Kagan replied that it was “easier to be up there,” and Sen. Bill Hagerty, R, Tenn., shot back, “I don’t know about that justice,” which was met with laughter.