Budget Hearing - Supreme Court of the United States

i i feel like saying oh yay oh yay oh yay on all rise

good morning i think there was a sustained effort up here to hold back on all rise as you entered so the subcommittee on financial services and general government will come to order The hearing is a budget hearing of the Supreme Court of the United States. Members will have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the record. Before we begin the hearing, I'd like to urge members to stay focused on the topic of today's hearing, United States Supreme Court budget request for fiscal year twenty twenty seven. This is not intended to be an opportunity to revisit the court's opinions, talk about financial disclosures of the justices, or any other issues not related to the court's budget request. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. I would wel- I'd like to welcome both Justice Kagan and Justice Coney Barrett, and thank them for being here today. This is as close as some of us will ever get in appearing before the Supreme Court. Uh, the last time a Supreme Court Justice appeared before the committee was in two thousand nineteen and we're very excited to have you here today with us. A great deal has changed over the last seven years. New technology has become accessible for bad actors. The threat environment facing our federal judiciary including the Supreme Court, has evolved substantially. Chief Justice Roberts himself wrote in his twenty twenty four year end report that he was troubled by the US Marshals' service data showing that hostile threats and communications toward judges had more than tripled over the preceding decade and the Marshals had investigated more than one thousand serious threats against federal justices in just the last five years. This committee does not take these facts lightly. We are reminded of Daniel Anderle, the son of Federal Judge Esther Anderle, who was killed by a disgruntled attorney at the door of his family home. And the threat to Justice Kavanaugh and twenty-two stopped in large part thanks to presence of two deputy US Marshals protecting the residents and local law enforcement's support. Whatever one's view of the specific Supreme Court ruling, judicial officers, up to and including the justice of the Supreme Court must be able to do their jobs without fear for their safety or their family's safety. In addition to security, the court needs to be able to operate effectively and efficiently. It should have the most up-to-date information, technology, infrastructure, and an electronic following system that meets the needs of all of its users. It should have enough staff to research, support our justices, and the American people. This is why your appearance before us today is so important. We need to understand whether current funding and staffing levels for the court, and its operations, including security, are keeping pace with the needs and the reality of the modern day threat environment. For the fiscal year twenty twenty-seven, the court is requesting two hundred and twenty-five million a fifty three uh point five percent increase above its federal uh fy twenty twenty six enacted level i look forward to discussing this request with you both i now recognize my ranking number for any opening statement you may have

mmm thank you very much mr. chairman i wanna welcome justin kagan and uh justin comey barrett to the court to the courtroom i suppose in in one sense but to the hearing room in a very significant other sense Um, I also wanna rec- uh, welcome Judge Dowell, uh, who has been so, uh, good to work with over the course of the last few years with respect to making sure that you had a sufficient budget not only to carry out your formal duties, but also to protect the justices. Unfortunately, we put the cart before the horse. We marked up the fiscal year twenty-seven bill in subcommittee and then marked it up in full committee. before we had hearings to inform us on the facts which would make the budget decisions more credible. Now we are having two hearings today from witnesses about their funding request in that bill that we passed. We should have started with those hearings. We also should be hearing from Treasury and Doge too. We did hear from OMB at which time Director Vogt informed us that he intended to have no oversight of the damage done by Doge. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I think we must have such hearings ourselves. As has been widely noted, this is the first time the Supreme Court justices are testifying before a House committee since twenty nineteen. We appreciate this opportunity. Such hearings used to be the norm. From nineteen sixty to twenty twenty two, there were ninety-three appearances by at least one sitting Supreme Court justice every year. Now, this is a budget hearing to fulfill our duty to appropriate the people's taxes responsibly. I imagine that the questions will go beyond, uh, the fiscal to the fundamental. Both are proper in my view, but in the case of the Court's essential independence, difficult. I want to begin this discussion today, uh, though, on the budget by noting that the very real threats faced by our judiciary, which the Chairman has mentioned, uh, is in our mind. According to the US Marshal's service, more than two hundred federal judges who have had threats made against them in this fiscal year alone. With a deeply divided country and increasingly violent rhetoric being directed at judges, Congress must provide sufficient funding to ensure the safety of all judicial personnel. The FSSGG bill, already advanced by the Appropriations Committee, would provide nine point six two billion for the judiciary, and two hundred and seven million dollars for the Supreme Court itself. That's a four point eight percent and seven point three percent increase, respectively. Included in the bill is a twenty eight point nine million increase for court security. At the same time, while we take measures to protect the physical safety of judges and court staff, Congress also has a responsibility to safeguard the independence of our judiciary. and its ability to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. Part of that is making certain that there is adequate funding for the public defenders. And I'm glad that we were able to address the budget shortfall for defenders serving in fiscal year twenty-six. In fiscal twenty-seven, the committee uh supported funding defender services at one point seven nine billion dollars with an increase of twenty-six million over the f- last year. That is a constitutional responsibility both the courts and Congress have. The rule of law depends on a judiciary that is properly funded, especially now when we need a strong judiciary to protect Americans from the imposition of a theory, in my view, of executive supremacy. This administration is routinely engaging in conduct that test the limits of our constitution. We must remember that our republic is a three-legged school school. Uh, the Congress, the executive, the judiciary. I believe that each branch must be held accountable by the other two, as well as that each branch has a constitutional duty to protect the constitutionally granted powers of the other two. The American people whom we represent expect the Supreme Court and all our federal courts. to play its constitutional role as a transparent and neutral arbiter of the law. Just as we in Congress must uh do our duty to hold the executive and judicial branches accountable, so too must the court carry out its responsibility to keep an overreaching executive or legislature in check without overreaching itself. At the same time, I believe the court has a responsibility to guard against The executive subverting the article one powers of the Congress from usurpation by the executive. That was the founder's genius of separation of powers and the assurance of checks and balances. That is how America's judiciary maintains the trust of the people and prevents constitutional crisis. As John Adams said, " We are a nation of laws, not of men." Maintaining the checks and balances to ensure that precept, that precept prevails, remains the difficult but necessary job of each of the branches. In doing so, each branch will earn the structural deference our founders intended, and they believed essential to perpet- perpetuate the democratic republic they so ably constructed. Justices, I thank you and your seven colleagues. for the work that you do. And I look forward to this hearing and what you have to say today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hoyer. I now recognize the ranking member of our full committee, the gentlelady from Connecticut, Ranking Member DeLauro, for her opening remarks.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you and Ranking Member Hoyer. And maybe I'll start with may it please the court, uh, may it please the Congress. Justice Kagan. Justice Coney Barrett, welcome. Thank you so much for appearing before this committee today. The last time, as has been said, any sitting Justice of the Supreme Court appeared before this committee was in two thousand nineteen and my hope is that this sets a precedent on the role of the United States House of Representatives. I fully appreciate the unique constitutional role of the court and the immense responsibilities each of you carries as members of our nation's highest tribunal. Traditional independence is fundamental to our constitutional system, and nothing about today's hearing should be understood as diminishing that principle. At the same time, independence does not preclude accountability. Cabinet secretaries, agency heads, and leaders of independent institutions routinely appear before Congress to explain how taxpayer dollars are being spent. and to answer questions regarding their budget requests. And the Supreme Court should be no exception. Each year, Congress exercises one of its core conditional constitutional responsibilities by appropriating funds for the federal judiciary. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the court appear before this committee each year to discuss its needs to answer questions from the representatives of the American people. As two of our nation's foremost constitutional scholars, I thank you. I thank you for recognizing that the Constitution vests the power of the purse in the Congress in bringing your budget before us today. Turning now to your fiscal year twenty twenty-seven budget. No one can ignore the disturbing rise in threats directed at members of the federal judiciary. It is not lost on me or any of us, the increasing prevalence and intensity of threats against not only you and your colleagues on the Supreme Court but against judges throughout the federal judiciary. As of the first of July, there have been three hundred and seventy threats made to federal judges, according to the US Marshal Service. During the entirety of last year, there were five hundred sixty-four threats made. At this rate, we are looking at a thirty-one percent year-over-year increase in threats against federal judges. That is simply and deeply an alarming rise. We are not strangers here to this heightened threat environment. Members on both sides of the aisle have seen an increase in serious, credible threats of violence as well. This poses a danger not only to public officials, but to the institution of democracy as a whole. Our system cannot function without a reasonable guarantee of safety. In recognition of this need, we approved on a bipartisan basis more than eight hundred and ninety million dollars for lower court security for fiscal year twenty twenty-six, an increase of over one hundred and forty million dollars compared to the previous year. In the spring, this committee passed a funding bill which included over nine hundred and twenty million dollars for lower court security, a further increase of almost thirty million dollars and equal to the amount proposed in your budget request. We are carefully considering the additional funding requested to fortify the Supreme Court and increase security for yourselves, your families, and your colleagues. We are of course happy, more than happy, to provide the the resources necessary to ensure the safety and the security of the jud- of the judicial branch. But we must be diligent in our duty as appropriators. For instance, will this additional funding for security be sufficient for the future, and how will that be measured? Will you need to come back again for further increases? Or will this be a one-time uh infusion, and will that suffice? This is a gravely serious issue, and we must make sure taxpayers' money is handled well. What action is the court taking to strengthen public confidence through ethics, transparency and accountability? It is no secret that political divisions in our country have grown deeper over the past decade or more. That, I believe, is one factor that has contributed to the erosion of trust in our system, including the Supreme Court. Various scandals have also plagued the court in recent years, from leaked decisions to financial entanglements and conflicts of interest, contributing to a growing sense among the public that our government exists to serve special interests and not the public good. The proportion of Americans who have confidence in our courts has declined from roughly sixty percent a decade ago to around thirty-five percent in twenty twenty four, according to Gallup. A democracy cannot sustain itself if the public has no faith in its institutions. We must all work to rebuild the trust of the American people that has been lost. To restore this trust, we must provide more transparency through increased financial disclosure requirements and a binding, enforceable code of ethics. The status quo of self-policing, voluntary disclosure, and un-enforceable guidelines is woefully insufficient. I say this to provide the public with the reassurance reassurance that they deserve, that when a decision is handed down, it is the result of rigorous constitution analysis, not private parochial interest. Over the past few weeks as we have approached and celebrated our nation's two hundred and fiftieth birthday, I've spent time reflecting on the founding and on the genius of the framers, Their insistence on an independent judiciary that has in Hamilton's words, and I quote, "neither force nor will, but merely judgment" end quote, has proved indispensable to the endurance of our democracy. I believe we all share a commitment to preserving both the independence of the judiciary and the public's confidence in it. Independence and accountability are not competing values. They are complementary pillars of a constitutional democracy worthy of the public's trust. Thank you so much for appearing before us today. I look forward to your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

Thank you, Ranking Member DeLauro. Today we welcome the testimony of Justice Kagan and Justice Coney Barrett of the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Kagan, without objection, your full written testimony will be entered into the record. With that in mind, we ask you to please summarize your opening statement in five minutes.

uh chairman joyce uh ranking member hoyer ranking member deloro um uh thank you for giving justice barrett and me the opportunity to present the supreme court's fiscal year twenty twenty seven budget request but if you don't mind uh chairman joyce before i do that i um i would like to say a few words about senator graham's untimely passing uh senator graham of course was a member of this house before he became a senator and in part i wish uh to express the entire court's condolences to his his sister the rest of his family his many friends and colleagues here in the house in the senate and elsewhere um on behalf of the entire court but i'd also make like to make a a few more personal comments um you know it's not very often well i'll just say that i didn't get many republican votes when i was confirmed to um the supreme court um and that's the usual state of things today not many republicans vote for the nominees of somebody selected by a democratic president and not many democrats do the same for someone selected by a republican president um and one would not expect uh such a cross party if you will vote uh certainly from somebody from a deep red or deep blue state and yet senator graham voted for me and um i vividly remember because he was a vivid person the conversation that we had in his office prior to my hearing um where he got to know me it was a long conversation he took the opportunity to get to know me he questioned me with great seriousness and great knowledge about my record as solicitor general including particularly the various terrorism issues that that office had dealt with over the time i was solicitor general uh and i still more vividly remember the conversations that we had at my hearing itself um uh in the last day or so many people have talked about how funny senator graham was i think uh al franken said he was the funniest man in the senate um but what i remember about that hearing was that somehow senator graham made me look funny which is a harder thing entirely um uh by asking me what i had done on christmas the following year and i'll skip the the back and forth but many people said to me afterwards um that exchange with senator graham was the moment my confirmation was sealed um uh so i want to express my gratitude towards him not only for his support but for uh approaching the confirmation process uh with the the kind of seriousness that he did uh and uh and the kind of respect he did and uh uh i never got to know senator graham very well but i can see why so many people will deeply miss him and i just wanted to convey that on behalf of may and again express the condolences of the entire court to his uh family and friends um we are very appreciative mr. chairman of the subcommittee's um constructive engagement and support you and your staff have been with us each step of the way as we've added security funding to meet the challenges of these times. I personally have enjoyed our regular meetings together, which have uh often occurred at the court. Our respective staffs also speak and share information regularly, and I look forward to our future work. The Supreme Court's funding is provided separately from the lower federal courts and split between two appropriations, one for salaries and expenses related to the daily operations and another for care of the building and grounds. We will address the operating budget today. The architect of the capital will submit a separate statement concerning our buildings and grounds. The court's operating budget funds the daily activities you'd expect in any federal courthouse, such as library and research services, case management, visitor services, information technology, facility management, and security. We carry out our work with relatively modest funding. Our budget represents just two percent of the judiciary branch's total funding, which in turn represents one tenth of one percent of the federal budget. Nonetheless, we take our responsibility as fiscal stewards very seriously. In fiscal year twenty twenty seven, the court is requesting an additional fourteen million dollars, a seven percent increase for salaries and expenses. Over the last five fiscal years, funding needs have grown on average fifteen percent per year. Aside from annual inflationary increases, recent growth in the court's budget has been almost enti- entirely for security expenses. The majority of last year's funding increase went to shifting the responsibility for residential security of the justices from the Marshal Service, to the Supreme Court Police. I first joined the court in twenty ten. our security was very different at the time the supreme court police focused almost exclusively on protecting the building and our it department focused on supporting the latest blackberry devices i didn't have a security team of my own and i was accompanied by security personnel only when i participated in work related public events we began expanding our security program in earnest in twenty seventeen initially at the behest of members of congress we engaged government and private industry experts to evaluate our needs on an ongoing basis. we started by expanding personal security beyond the chief justice so that associate justices also received small security details much too small as it turned out. as threat assessments called for larger details and as overtime costs correspondingly rose we requested funding for more officers vehicles and support staff. As events at the capitol and other federal courthouses revealed our building's vulnerabilities, we also added new physical security systems. When personal threats increased following the Dobbs leak, we expanded our residential security and threat assessment activities. Similarly, as online attacks grew in number and sophistication, we requested additional cyber security resources. Our strategy has been consistent across security functions. expand incrementally but effectively to meet evolving security challenges. We are not alone in this. Although orders of magnitude smaller, the Supreme Court's Police Department is modeled after your own Capitol Police Department. The two departments have matching pay tables and similar organizational charts. They work closely together on threats pertaining to the Capitol campus and beyond. They also face many of the same challenges. including officer recruitment and retention. And they have implemented many of the same solutions to address those challenges. Over the last five years, the Capitol Police Department's annual operating needs have increased seventy percent, a figure similar to the court's. For fiscal year twenty twenty seven, Capitol Police requested a sixteen percent increase. As neighbors, our two police departments will continue, I'm very sure, to work cooperatively together. Our respective departments' growing needs are obvious, given current conditions. The Capitol Police Chief recently testified that threats against Congress are up fifty percent this year. The Supreme Court Police expect a smaller but still very substantial thirty-eight percent annual increase in threats this year, which follows a twenty-five percent increase last year. For some of us, those threats have come very close. and all of us live with the knowledge that they may again materialize 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 we are grateful to the Supreme Court Police for all they do to support our ability to do so again we thank you for your invitation to come here While we cannot comment on decisions or pending cases, Justice Barrett and I are happy to to answer any budget related questions you may have.

Thank you, Justice Gagan. And now recognize myself for questions. Chief Justice Robert himself, uh, referenced, you know, rise in threats in the judicial branch in his twenty twenty four year end report. He specifically cited more than a thousand threats investigated against federal judges in just the preceding five years. Would you talk about how the volume and nature of threats against the court has changed over the past several years, particularly following the Dobbs decision and the twenty twenty-two incident at Justin Kavanaugh's home. Has the threat level changed in twenty twenty-six, and what do you believe is driving that trend?

The numbers, you know, as you've mentioned, it was up twenty five percent last year, on track for thirty eight percent this year,

Question.

and those,

Microphone, please.

listen good

yes

um and those statistics sound abstract but being on the receiving end of them is not so i thought i would just share a little bit about how the threats have uh affected me and my family personally

please

um they have required me to uh my my children to think about and see things that children should not have to see or think about one example is when threats to my life were particularly intense a few years ago around the time of the jobs leak my security detail sent me home with a bullet proof vest and i carried it into my house put it into my bedroom dropped it down on a table turned around and my twelve year old son was standing in the doorway of my bedroom and he wanted to know what it was and why i had it and i didn't know how to respond because maybe i lack imagination but i didn't expect that performing this service was gonna put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bullet proof vest was and why i had to wear one um it's also been reported in the news that roughly six weeks ago i was the victim of a swatting incident um at at that point my teenage son one of my teenage sons opened the door to go out with friends and saw in our street it was full of police cars um who had responded to a false report of gunshots and raised voices in my home i was very very grateful that i had supreme court police outside my home because they were able to stop and meet with and explain to the county police that it had been a false alarm and so the police did not actually attempt to enter our home. um Many of us, me included, have received threatening anonymous deliveries designed to intimidate and harass us. They are often sent in the name of Judge Salas's son, um who I think as you mentioned in the beginning, Mister Chairman, um was is deceased because he was killed by a disgruntled lawyer who showed up at judge salas's home intending to kill her but her son um twenty years old at the time opened the door and took the bullet instead her husband standing behind was seriously injured so i think the message on these deliveries being sent in his name is clear um as justice kagan said federal judges across the country throughout the judiciary including the supreme court continue to do their jobs without

Over the last few years we've seen an increase in first amendment related activity around DC including the Supreme Court campus Supreme Court building itself has had perimeter fencing up at various points in recent years. What is the current state of permanent physical security upgrades to the building and how much of this budget request is dedicated to capital improvements versus ongoing personnel costs?

i think

um

no go ahead

no feel free

um most of the the the money for uh this this increase is um personnel and and not um building arrangements um we have occasionally put up perimeter offenses we don't like that we want to express um a commitment to be open and transparent to the public as i know other governmental institutions do as well occasionally we have found it necessary given the threat level to um to put up some barriers but um they come down as quickly as we can uh take them down um uh so uh uh some small part of the funding request is for uh uh building improvements but mostly it's for security personnel

protecting the court and justice system involves coordination between the supreme court police obviously the us marshal service secret service capital police and local law enforcement, depending on your location. Would you walk us through how those responsibilities are divided, and were there any gaps or redundancies in the structure that we should be aware of?

Um, we are primarily taken care of by the Supreme Court Police. When we needed additional residential security and the Supreme Court Police was unable to staff that, the Marshal's service did help us, and so our homes were protected by the Marshal's service. I might be wrong about this, two years or so. The Marshal's service was not able to

and i should say we like it that way to have our own police force rather than to be reliant on the martial service which is uh within the department of justice this way

mmm

we just get more control over our own security arrangements um uh some of you may recall that last year we asked for a supplemental request and that was to deal with the problem that we had thought that we had a longer stretch of time to make the transition between the martial service and the supreme court police in the end we had to make it more quickly than we thought we would and uh we're very grateful to the various committees uh in both the house and senate for making sure that we had the supplemental monies that were uh that enabled us to make that transition more quickly than we had thought was necessary

thank you and now recognize ranking member hoyer for any questions he may have

thank you very much and again thank you to the testimony

uh we're all very concerned about the security and the safety of our judiciary not only because of you individually but because the impact it would have on our system uh and the disincentive for people to serve in the roles that are so critically important to our society. Uh, let me go to the staffing. You said similar, the pay labels are similar to the capital place, uh, and that they obviously work together and interface, uh, together. Is your budget now sufficient so that you will not have contract, um, uh, employees, uh, outside contractors protecting your homes?

Not at this point. the goal is to be able to staff so that we can entirely absorb residential security within our um office and i'm sure our staff can provide more details about the time-line for that but at this time it is not

uh will the budget that is projected for fiscal year twenty seven allow you to do that do you know

uh

uh i think still not

yes

but um but we will be getting closer

mmm great

and certainly our goal and and we want it to be as a short term goal we possibly can um is to get to the point where we're not reliant on any outside contractors

i think it's critically important to have people who really know you your habits uh your to and froing uh someone who

you are speaking to the choir there

well as someone who had a security detail for twenty years uh in my previous positions uh i found it critically important that they got to know me and my habits and the habits of my family uh and made them much more proficient in protecting uh man uh so we wanna make sure that that's the case uh let me go to and i'm not asking you about the substance of decisions but i am asking you there has been a substantial increase in what i would i guess we call shadow uh decisions is that a um budget related or policy related uh phenomenon.

Well, let's see, I think that litigants have long had the ability to seek interim relief from the court but I think you're certainly right ranking member Hoyer that we have uh seen a big change in the volume and the nature of such requests the court is doing its best to adapt and respond I think it's a policy question um not so much a budget one, I don't know if you have an additional thoughts.

i'm sure there will be additional questions but

does that uh does that uh impact on the transparency which you referred to not putting up fences so the people had access there are concerns obviously that these shadow uh dispositions uh impact adversely uh on the knowledge of public has about how the courts makes its decisions and who is making what decisions do you comment on that

um ranking member hoyer you know there are definitely um uh issues with respect to the we call it the emergency docket some of us call it the interim docket i it's a terminology nightmare i call it the emergency docket and uh there are definitely questions about how it's appropriate to use that docket when it's appropriate to use that docket the standards to be applied the way those standards um uh actually work out in individual cases and you see that in some of our decisions because we are um uh in in in many if not most of these cases not unanimous there will be a a majority and a dissent um uh the reason i think it's probably not appropriate at least not now to uh call it the shadow docket is because uh we have done i think uh a better job in the recent past uh of where appropriate and it's not always appropriate but where appropriate explaining ourselves at least um to a moderate degree um so i i think if you had asked me this question a year ago i might have said that there would be there were some cases and in fact i did say uh i had said in some public events that 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. Were we saying something about the merits of the case? Were we saying about something about who had standing to contest the merits? Were we saying something about appropriate remedies? Nobody knew. I don't think that that's so much a problem anymore. I think that um uh as we've gotten more experienced in these constant requests that are coming to us about um uh apply uh uh requests uh for emergency relief um that we better recognize that at least sometimes there is a need for additional information and we have issued uh opinions and uh sometimes majority and dissenting opinions accordingly

thank you very much

thank you the chair now recognizes mr. amadei for any questions he may have

thank you mr. chairman um To provide some context, obviously security is is probably rightfully so at the top of the pyramid as we as we discussed the court and its budget. How's business? I I I I mean you know, anybody know where you are, anybody filing this that, and you've kind of touched on a little bit in response to Mister Hoyer's questions, but to have an idea of how things are running in the machine of, well we got nine justices, and here's who comes to us, and here's what we're doing, here's what we're turning down. here's what we're accepting just to have kind of a background context to this discussion about security so however you wanna address that

sure um

how's business going

yeah well business as business as usual um or maybe not as usual

alright

uh so uh we do everything we can to be transparent and to welcome the public into the court we've really taken strides in adapting our website to make it more user friendly so people can come to our website they can easily access all the briefs all the opinions the website also has information about who the nine justices are the history of the building that sort of thing our courtroom is open to the public we routinely have public courtroom lectures to groups that coming in um i believe all of my colleagues um i know i do speak to groups and school groups that come through to educate them about the court um our uh curator has exhibits throughout the first floor of the court to educate people about

Great, thank you. How about caseload? What's what's the case, I know threats are way up. How's caseload?

Mm.

well we have um as ranking member hoyer suggested we have a a more than ordinary emergency caseload i would say we have a about an ordinary um regular uh docket um if you look back really a number of decades our our uh docket has gone down you know when i clerked at the court so that was i'm afraid to say how long ago but um in the late nineteen eighties the court handled about a hundred forty cases a year the court now handles in terms of regular argued cases maybe seventy cases a year so significant decrease there's a cottage industry in explanations for why that decrease took place over time but um but for all the time that i have been on the court we have been relatively stable so the last fifteen years or so we're we're doing um about you know maybe one year at seventy five one year at sixty but something uh on that order so we continue to hear cases every month and to always decide um uh always issue all our um opinions uh before july fourth every year

thank you you're back mr. chairman

thank you mr. amity the chair will now recognize the lovely lady from connecticut mr. laurel for any questions she

thank you very much mr. chairman and just a point before i get to my questions with regard to the exchange uh with uh uh Justice Kagan and and uh Congressman uh Amadei it would appear that the these are the court statistics in two thousand six there were ten thousand two hundred and fifty six total cases and of in in term twenty twenty four forty five uh almost forty six hundred cases so it it is about a fifty five percent decline i have to imagine in and then analyzing that

this is in petitions that we talked about

yeah

uh-huh

so that it may be that what happens there is the uh the interim shadow whatever we are talking about here that may come may be a part of that um uh so that there has been uh uh you know you you know in a fewer cases than you pointed out that that have happened in prior decades um uh uh and then the issue of of of staffing is is you know how commensurate is then the staffing to this what what what the case is but let me just um and i i i won't get into this but in terms of there's always the view out there of what about cameras in the court you know so we have them everywhere here

yeah

uh um but as members of congress let me

is that good or bad

uh ok i'll take a breath on that uh no it's a it's

i'm sorry i didn't mean to turn it around and ask

no no but you're very good it's very good it's called transparency anyway

ok

uh my question uh as members of congress we follow very strict gift and ethics rules we're not allowed to accept any gift if it's over fifty dollars at one time and there's a total value is more than one hundred dollars in the calendar year from any individual there are exceptions and an entire committee we have an ethics committee that decides whether a trip or a gift is allowed um but as justices of the supreme court you can and do accept these gifts without any committee or without hesitation or maybe there's hesitation but in any case you can accept these gifts um the supreme court does not have a gift ban or a binding code of ethics i know in twenty twenty three a voluntary code of ethics was adopted but it is entirely self-policing without any mechanism for enforcement. Um, it is more permissive than the code that applies to all other federal, uh, uh, uh, judges. Uh, and - and - and just in full transparency, I strongly support Ranking Member Raskin's High Court gift bin, which would bring the Supreme Court Justices' rules in line with the rest of the federal government. Based on the financial disclosures available for the justices, tickets and trips have exceeded this threshold of the the uh which is in the voluntary code um this last year um so a couple of questions from this is this a time to make this a requirement instead of a suggestion is my first question

you want me to do yes yeah i i uh ranking member i would be happy to address the question about gifts the court follows the restrictions of the judicial conference of the united states applicable to all judges with respect to gifts and we are not there are restrictions on our ability to accept gifts we are not permitted to accept gifts with you know some nuances and some exceptions from litigants before the court

mmm

um and any gifts that we do accept accept this is by statute there is a statutory limit on any on reporting that requires reporting of any gift i think that the limit is about five hundred dollars right now you would know they would be on our financial disclosures because we have to disclose that. So with respect to gifts we do have constraints, um, and we do have our in-house counsel, I mean anytime I have any question about how the Code applies to a particular circumstance, I always call him.

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Uh, did you wanna address enforceability?

Um, you know, on the the the Code of Conduct, as as you noted, we uh, the nine justices all agreed to a Code of Conduct. towards the supreme court as you also noted there is a question about enforceability and uh right now the um the mechanism has no enforceability system

oh

and this is something on which um various people have have spoken in the past and and you know i've made my views known in the past which is that i think we should work hard to try to figure out some enforcement system i will say that that's an extremely difficult question for pretty obvious reason i think which is that i don't think that you would want an enforcement system that was controlled by the executive branch or by the legislature and this is because of what you said in your opening statement about the importance of judicial independence you know you don't want a president

right

mmm mmm picking an inspector general to decide you know which of us is breaking the rules or how we're breaking the rules so i think it really has to come from within the judiciary and that's hard because um you know we sit at the top of the judiciary committee so it's hard to figure out how to have a system that is makes use of judicial resources to police us um one idea that has been suggested by some people is to use uh respected retired judges

right

that has you know some pros some cons

mmm

um i think that this remains mmm an uh an open question a question of discussion mmm

mmm

um uh mmm uh but so far we have not resolved anything

ok and because

the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from iowa mrs. Stinson

good morning uh thank you to both of you uh for coming before our committee today and you were so welcoming to this full committee when we came over to visit with you few years ago and um to have some of these similar conversations about your security needs and i am i'm so sorry you're having to deal with many of these same threats that members of congress and our families also deal with and um justice barrett uh you were sharing that story about your twelve year old my boys are thirteen and fifteen and so i've had to have some of those very uh similar uncomfortable conversations with them about our our security posture even in the middle of iowa so um i'm sorry you're having to deal with that i think reasonable people can disagree and unreasonable people resort to violence and Um unfortunately that's where we are and so um I appreciate your comments on that and um uh no you are not alone in dealing with those challenges, but it is unfortunate nonetheless. Um I wanted to follow up on on something you started with, uh about um the coordination with the marshals when you're traveling for speeches, um because you talk about having the Supreme Court police force but obviously working um in coordination with uh other law enforcement when you're traveling for, for speeches, um some of those teaching opportunities, other engagements, so Um, we know that those are not immune from protests and, um, first amendment activities as well. Can you speak a little bit to what that work is like in terms of coordinating on the ground as you're traveling the country to have some of those conversations on the ground?

I think some of that coordination might be something we would have to say that if you wanted to talk in a skiff or with staff just about the operational details, but I think at a high level I can say that when we are, you know, appearing, say, at a university, there's a lot of coordination, obviously, between the university security staff and our security staff. The same is true whenever we're at an event with local police, there's coordination with local law enforcement authorities. Um, and - and when we are interacting with, um, other, um, entities within the judiciary, lower courts or at circuit conferences, then there is a lot of coordination with the marshal's service. I think some of the specifics I probably

Yep.

shouldn't - probably don't know enough to speak, you know, with - with specificity, but probably would have to say that would be like in a private meeting.

No, absolutely, and I think happy to have a a further conversation about that,

Yeah.

cuz simply we would we just wanna make sure that you you feel safe as you're going out and um exercising your duties um to to be open to the public right and and have those conversations in a public setting it's of utmost importance that you can do that, and feel safe and that you're getting adequate law enforcement response on the ground, uh no matter where you're having those conversations. Um speaking of recruitment, I just kinda wanted to talk about that as well because you mentioned that you're on par with Capitol Police in many of the um arrangements

yeah well this is a tough time to hire police officers it's a challenging recruitment environment that um maybe fewer people are going into the uh policing profession and um and so you're competing with a lot of entities for the same top qualified people. Um uh not withstanding that we've we've managed to do pretty well, we do offer um uh a a recruitment bonus, um we you know we we like to think we're a pretty good place to work and to we we we take great care to to make that so. Um but it is it's a challenging time.

And how do you balance obviously that recruitment um with some of the risks, I mean people very publicly see right and and you're you're the face of that obviously in in not only the decisions that are made but obviously people come and see the court and people come and wanna hear from you um how do you balance that recruitment with um some of those risks um in terms of getting people in the door

Yeah well people definitely come in the door I mean we are uh you know we have many visitors to the court we um have a packed courtroom most of the time when we um uh when we hear argued cases um so we're trying you know very hard uh not to let it interfere with the court's openness to the public and um and we'll continue to to try our best to do that and just to make sure that we have the security personnel the security resources we need uh to ensure safety uh uh within an essentially public building

and just a question about and maybe it's something that needs to be addressed in this gift as well because you you think about the limelight that's on you and um that may shift depending on a case that's being heard or a decision that's been offered um do the number of officers or um marshals assigned to you vary dependent on that limelight or um is the detail pretty consistent no matter who you are

we are each assigned between four and eight members of a security detail but in particular moments when the need arises and especially if someone is under a particular threat or if they're speaking more publicly so they're more in the limelight in an event that number increases and we're able to pull from other resources within the court.

Right.

And over time we'd like that detail number to increase. So if now it's four to six, maybe eight uh members of of a security detail, you know, we'd like to increase that over time when we get to our full staffing needs.

Yeah. And as Ranking Member Hoyer had spoken, and I'm I know I'm out of time, Mister Chairman,

Of course.

you know, these these people get to know your routines and making sure that you have people on your detail who are familiar with your activities is is critical. So, thank you Mister Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you, Mrs. Hinson. Chair now recognizes Mr. Polka. Very good.

Five minutes of questions.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both uh for being here. I couldn't make our most recent informal conversation, but I remember a few years back you both were very generous with your time, and I really appreciated that discussion, so thank you both for that. Um, I I I think there's no question that any of us, there should be no partisan difference in wanting to make sure everyone's secure. Uh, we have our own challenges as you've heard uh, I think holidays seem to bring it out for at least members of congress or in my area um at christmastime we had bomb sniffing dogs i was wondering if i was gonna start having to have treats out there for them if they're gonna be coming that often uh my brother is a judge in milwaukee county he recently there's a a court trial over someone who had threatened his life via phantom family court so you know i i i'm glad you're here to talk about those security concerns but i think hopefully you can tell we're like one party right now when it comes to this in making sure you have that security i do wanna say though i think at a thirty thousand foot level public also has some questions about our institutions and we it coming down us then is to make sure that we're at times either explaining or reforming to meet where some of those concerns are right now at the executive branch level i think um you know people are seeing some unprecedented uh amounts of new things happening that in two hundred and fifty years this country haven't happened and that's causing concern here in legislative branch i would argue i think people think we've lost our copies of the constitution and that we're a co-equal branch of government we're not doing our jobs but i think when it comes to your branch specifically the two areas i hear the most and i do a lot of town halls um are the shadow docket or emergency interim docket uh and then the issue around um code of conduct but let me shadow dockets one i really like the the explanation uh i'm not a lawyer my brother is uh but uh you know the amount of cases that you took up last year were surpassed uh the last session surpassed sixty three on this so called shadow docket versus fifty six on the regular and if you go back in history during the um uh bush and obama solicitor general times emergency relief was only done eighteen times combined over sixteen years right so this is a huge change in how this and i'm gonna use shadow docket cause i'm a journalism major i was taught to talk at eighth grade level so everyone understands it that's the vernacular i think people understand but you know these are they're not really fully briefed they're not fully argued opinions in the same way i think that people are used to the tradition of the respected tradition of the court um they're unsigned uh usually um emergency orders but that definition of what's an emergency certainly seems to have changed given the number of cases it usually was what elections or like someone was on death row when you dealt with this and now it's about whether trans people can serve in the military or cases that may not be seen by the public in the same uh way so my question is just help me understand this yeah there is um i i have a podcast we had a conversation on this with the expert one time and they said a few suggestions they had and and let me run this by you and if you just talk a little more about this so i can understand why the cases have gone up so much you know they suggested things like um restoring more mandatory jurisdiction to the court so that you're not maybe cherry picking in some in some ways empowering lower courts to seek guidance from you ahead of time so maybe sometimes that could take care of things uh inspector general uh for the judiciary anything you wanna talk about those were some things that came up but i i would like to be able to explain to people next time i have a town hall and people ask about this why this rise has happened in areas that i don't think we really expected those cases and while you said there might be a decline i think just this trump presidency alone in sixteen months there's what thirty four of these it might be my number is off it might even be higher by now um there are forty one in the first full term that seems like a rapid expansion of this so i talked too long but if you could address that i'd appreciate it

uh thank you congressman buchan i i'll address something about the the numbers i saw something about this in the news in the last couple of days i'd have to sit down to figure out the numbers i i think that it could be that what the numbers are referring to are we have we have mandatory jurisdiction in a sense over all of these emergency applications because everyone every single one of them we have to either So to the extent that we've disposed of say sixty seven, I'm not exactly sure what the number is, some of those may be denies, it's not that there were sixty seven grants, but in every single case we wind up doing something on the emergency docket because we've either denied relief or we've granted relief. So, you know, as long as we have that jurisdiction, we don't have the discretionary jurisdiction like we do on the merits docket where we have cert authority and we choose which cases to take. on the emergency docket it's like you just take all comers and you have to grant or deny these motions as they are filed um and uh

uh uh i didn't mean to suggest miss uh mr. congressman pokun that um the overall numbers had declined just that there was a decline in the um uh ok when we grant uh relief with no explanation that we do that less uh frequently than we once did but i think you know you've made some excellent points about the um yeah there are downsides of using um emergency uh uh relief that we don't get the kind of briefing that we ordinarily do we don't get the um uh the argument that we ordinarily uh get and um and we should consider those downsides when we decide how often to grant this relief now i will say that the court again you know as it's question is like why are all these people coming to us for this relief when they didn't in the past i think partly it has to do with the fact that uh-huh the court did grant some of these petitions and then you encourage everybody else to bring them to you and now it's become you said like how's business how's business it's like business is pretty good on this side because people see that there is at least a potential for us to grant relief and so why not file a petition and um the court i think again has uh and there are there are differences there are disagreements among the nine of us we talk about this all the time sometimes a majority does something and uh there is a dissent um um but i think uh over time uh we have at least tried to uh do better in um in in important cases ensuring that we have some degree of sort of regularish process so that there are some emergency petitions for example the one that um was just decided involving the federal reserve bank which we almost treat as though it were a regular case in other words we ask for argument we make sure we get a sufficient briefing to decide it so um occasionally we've done that and that is something that uh i think we we we need to uh consider going forward as well thank you

thank you miss bogan the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas mr. cloud for five minutes

thank you mr. chairman and thank you justice for being here it's great to see you again and uh thank you for the opportunity uh we've had to speak with you about this uh over at your place uh the couple of times over the last few years uh most my questions have been addressed in those meetings regarding security i did wanna just point out that this is not just it's your personal security but it's also the it systems that need to be updated it's the cyber security that you're

mmm

constantly attacked that's also being addressed in this as well. Correct?

Correct. The cyber security attacks um have been up, you know, by magnitudes year after year. AI is and the the rapid advancement of AI is making that more and more possible. We haven't suffered the kind of paralyzing attacks that some of the lower courts have, but in seeing that, that has caused us to try to ramp up very quickly our cyber security protection. And so some of the funding that we're seeking is for additional cyber security experts who can come in when we've tried to proceed very responsibly we've consulted we had an external review done um by experts and then we've assembled a tiger team inside the court to try to implement um those suggestions because it obviously impacts not only the independence of the judiciary but their national security risks to having our system speak vulnerable

one of the big issues recently was the leak that happened uh and the court was doing its best effort with the tools available at the time to track down the leak uh i don't know if we've found a leaker yet i don't think it's public

the marshal issued a report at the conclusion of our internal investigation saying that we had not at that time

yet that we have at that time right

but yeah if it she also said in that report that were additional evidence or leads to surface that they would be pursued

and there have been additional leaks over time too and this is something that all nine justices take extremely seriously because we can't do our business we can't engage in confidential communications which is the best way to be fully open with one's colleagues about one's views um and uh if you think that those views are going to appear on the front page of a newspaper you pull back you don't you don't have the kinds of conversations that i think

sure

um the court really depends on to do great work and um so uh you know this is something that is has frustrated all of us and that we are continuing to make efforts to resolve

is is it your view uh if if there's a police force that reported directly to the supreme court uh that would include cyber security officials i imagine or any of the sort is your is it your view that they would be subject to congressional subpoena or would that be a separation of powers issue

i don't think we have or authorized to express a view on that

ok um one issue i i do think uh that americans are concerned with and it's really a appreciative to have you here i wish we could have more of these because of our constitutional role to be a check in a sense on not necessarily on you all your decision certainly but on the judiciary system uh is one thing that's really concerned me is what we've seen in nationwide injunctions uh what we've seen in what's been lawfare in the sense of we've seen lawyers who were supporting the the the president be disbarred while those who campaigned and even attacked uh him invented extraneous legal platforms to go after him uh there's was no disciplinary action at all and and what concerns me about that is the aba uh the american bar association doesn't serve officially as a gatekeeper but in many ways serves as a gatekeeper which traditionally that hasn't been that big of a deal but they are the only uh recognized they are the only accrediting agency for law schools recognized by the federal government uh yet lately they've kind of taken a partisan bent on a number of their policy uh outcomes and initiatives uh including transgender surgery for children uh advancing dei uh requirements for uh accredited universities uh for law students universities who did not embrace those uh they're weighed in on immigration policy voting rights opposed uh display of ten commitments in public schools they have opinions on a number of different international issues including urging support for the people of the western sahara self-determinant you know so it's just it's all of that to say it's gone beyond making sure that we have good people uh who are qualified representing us um yet they serve in many ways as a gatekeeper and i'm curious what would be the right way to approach that uh texas supreme court i know issued an opinion that basically said they shouldn't be the sole gatekeeper uh anymore at least for texas's concern eh whether we should have more creditors whether we should leave that to the states i think there's a congressional role in this and so that's why i i'm asking

if i may um we have a hard stop of eleven forty five cuz the justices need to go over to the senate and testify there i wanna make sure everybody gets their five minutes so um if you can respond to that in very quick order or we can move on to the next questioner it's up to you

up to you

it's up to you

uh uh i'll say something very uh quickly each state is in charge of the um admissions bar requirements for lawyers and so i think that lies with the states

thank you now recognize the gentlelady from washington this is

Thank you, Mister Chair, and and thank you both so much for being here. Um. One of my concerns with Congress's um increase in the security funding for members of Congress um that we recently executed here was that it was not really addressing the root cause of the increased um threats of violence and the underlying sort of lack of of uh of uh accountability for people making these threats. Um, I I don't wanna make soft targets out of my local electeds, my teachers, my nurses, because we are hardening our security infrastructure as elected off officials. Um, you know, if my kitchen is flooding, I turn off the water before I start mopping up around the kitchen. And so I'm wondering what can be done to increase the prosecution and accountability of those who make threats against public servants And how can these funds, and this appropriation be leveraged to support that prosecution, and turn down the volume and increase the accountability, because all taxpayers are bearing the burden of of these threats.

I think that that's um largely uh a question to make to the Justice Department and to other prosecuting authorities. That you know, we have no power to uh prosecute or not prosecute particular crimes, uh to decide where the priorities lie um and uh that that might be um that that incredibly important question might better be addressed to prosecuting officials

one of the things i've wondered about is you know i've i've you know none of us wanna talk about the threats that are made against us we don't wanna give anybody ideas right um especially having young kids at home um but one of the questions is the um the evidence that's collected by capital police how are they making how can their investigation be executed in a way that would provide supporting evidence for a prosecutor as they're considering picking up this case or not is that in the realm

i think that that would be something that our police department would be very happy to talk to your staff about in a private setting i actually don't know the answer to that question of what the police do to to maintain evidence to build a case but i'm sure in a skiff or other private setting that would be something that you could explore.

Um and and would that be considered as part of this apportionment for security funding?

That I don't know, that strikes me as general operational as just as Kagan said, we don't have any authority to prosecute within our branch and our police don't either,

Mm-hmm.

so that seems like it's a best practices um best current practices question about how the police handle that now.

Yeah. I mean it's it's my view that as we are you know it's not just about the individual threat. Um, it, it, we have to maintain our security.

Yeah.

But the way that we are pursuing that security should be done in a way with a longer view towards more accountability and better use of taxpayer resources and a more deliberative democracy.

Mm-hmm.

Um, I've seen some people make the argument that rising security concerns will lead justices to opt out of appearing at events. Um, and the crowd is known to not be friendly. Um, do you think there's any merit to that argument? And if so, Um, how does how does that impact the credibility of the institution, um, as it continues to be viewed rightly or wrongly by many as increasingly partisan?

I can say that personally, myself, I've spoken at many events that I wouldn't describe as friendly. I've been protested a lot and spoken at events where I know protesters will be. Um, and that doesn't deter me from appearing, but if there were serious threats at the facility i've had to i've i've encountered some of that before then of course you can't remain out in the public place and that so that's different um and i don't actually know and again this would be a question that perhaps could be discussed in a private meeting or a skiff i don't actually know how often that has happened but i think when there are actually threats to life you know then obviously the public event can't go forward

um i think it's it's i'm presuming rare for um uh uh supreme court justice to have young children at home um i'm wondering um justice tony barrett um if if the allocation being made here for security is sufficient for provision of security services at um for your children

i'm very grateful for the residential security i think that is the primary i mean that that that has just been huge for us i think questions about oops sorry questions about the allocation of resources and the number of detail and that sort of thing i think i would refer that to the skiff as well

great thank you thank you

thank you for your questions uh we now recognize uh mister edwards for his question

thank you for being with us this morning uh because we're running close on time i'm gonna eliminate the niceties and get straight to the questions does the court's it budget include funding for ai assisted legal research or document review tools and if so what safeguards are in place to maintain confidentiality

um i'm i'm i'm i don't think that our review budget that our budget includes a specific um you know appropriation for ai i think that you know this is a question that we're looking at very closely in terms of what our rules should be going forward what the best practices in this area are in terms of um how justice is how their clerks how their assistants use ai and make sure that it's used appropriately but not used on a a where it's not where it's likely to create more dangers than than anything else

have you identified any other opportunities to streamline administrative functions through technology or maybe even shared services

think the court is uh always seeking efficiency and i think we operate on a pretty lean staff um in terms of how our technology works i mean i i i do think that our it staff works very hard to make things work efficiently on the inside as justice kagan said i mean i know a lot of corporations and maybe congress too are turning to ai to gain efficiencies and we're not there yet um because of the risks that ai could present but it is something that we're studying and you know perhaps AI seems to be infiltrating everything, so I'm sure at some point in the future it will get the question.

I resist using the the the letters AI. It's so so abused, I'd rather just say new technology. Uh, but thank you. Speaking of staffing, what uh how many current unfilled positions are there in the Supreme Court? And can you give us any perspective on what those are and how long it they may have been vacant

ok if you know that you're better than i am

i do not know that does anyone know that i think we'll have to get back to uh on that we can send something over

alright well as an appropriator i'm always really curious about the that that sort of thing

we have a a a

so

we have an incredibly the the the the um the amount of time that people spend on the court constantly amazes me so every year we have these events where we give little people hands to people and so forth and especially when they retire and they um you know it's like thirty years on the court forty years on the court twenty five years on the court so this is not a building which is in constant turnover in terms of its employees there is a really long term service in this building i think people like to work there i think people feel honored to work there and the result is that we really don't have to worry about a lot of turnover

last last question on the uh uh uh appropriations front have there been any recent audits or reports by the ag where there were any material weaknesses found that have not yet been resolved

material weaknesses in our expenditures or our budgets

right the the total operation of the supreme court

is that a no no

ok

that's a no

ok well then since that answer was so quick let me ask you a question one more

i should have dragged it out kind of

one more let me ask one one more question uh what deferred maintenance or capital investment is there still uh listed as a backlog and is that the for public consumption

i think that the budget for the grounds is not part of our current security our our current budget request, so i'm not sure what maintenance or grounds um

right but

expenses would be included in that through the architect of the capital.

alright thanks next time we're gonna bring your controller thank you for being with us

thank you congressman

there's a severe backlog in all federal buildings as far as deferred maintenance now recognize mister ivy for five minutes

thank you mister chairman i appreciate that and thank you uh to the justices for joining us today i i um wanted to follow up on the shadow docket issue uh emergency docket issue um

we're not policing you we're violating our rights we're doing whatever you want

we call it whatever you want

i recognize the sensitivity about it but i i do um and i thank you for for your comments about this i we've we found comments that you all had made at public events and so i Thought it's something that I could raise. One of the things I wanted to ask about is with respect to the injunctive relief, temporary uh injunctions that were put in place. Um, that had come up to you all and you all looked at it, irreparable harm. I think Justice Barrett, you had you'd kind of noodled about this publicly on a couple of occasions. Um, and I wanted to get your your take on that, because just to be candid, I represent Prince George's County. We have tens of thousands of federal employees who've been laid off. were forced out during this time period uh in part during what's been going on with the litigation in these cases and frankly the strategy for many of these was if you can get injunctive relief for them so they can stay on the job um at least they can you know keep their house keep their kids in college make sure they can put food on the table to the extent those injunctions were lifted because i guess some of the some of these don't have opinions but i guess some of the justices thought that this didn't constitute irreparable harm um you know it's pretty damaging from the perspective of them and it looked like the analysis was focused mainly from the government uh i mean the uh the trump administration's perspective so i wanted to get your take on that

to me

well to me yes ma'am but to both of you

um let's see so i think the specifics of individual cases are something that we're not prepared to get into in the hearing just because that would be especially i don't know exactly which of the orders that you're talking about but especially if they were unreasoned orders then to talk about the reasoning of them would disclose the internal deliberations of the court which you know would be inappropriate for me to do um i would say that in our opinions including in our emergency docket opinions um we lay out the factors that are considered um you know in in considering grants of uh irreparable of uh emergency relief excuse me and irreparable harm is one of those factors as is likelihood of success on the merits balancing of the equities um and so i think the factors are laid out quite plainly how they apply in any individual case or how we have applied them in individual cases i wouldn't wanna

that's fair but i'm not asking

ok

specifically for individual cases is there a general approach from your perspective cause you did lay out irreparable harm as one And I think you also mentioned in one of your, uh, September nine, twenty twenty five speeches, that you did look at it from the Trump administration's perspective.

You can

I, I, go ahead.

please finish.

I, I wanted to see if there's also a view from the perspective in this instance is, the plaintiffs who um, or the parties who were government employees or whoever, who were on the opposite side of that.

Okay, I, I now understand your question. Yes, those factors, um, they're from a case called Nken. um those factors um it's built into the test itself that you gauge irreparable harm likelihood of success on the merits from the point of view of the applicant so if it were the employee's if they were the applicant's it would be the irreparable harm to the employee of not receiving the relief that they seek if the uh person who seeks uh emergency relief is say the government then it would be evaluated from that perspective that's just built into the test itself which is in the the opinions in the cases

i do think though that the test also has room for what we call the balance of the equities

the equities

and that allows you to take into consideration also the the the what's going to happen to the non-applicants in any given case now again how that happens and uh you know is is uh is a different question

true yes true true

excellent and just other quick point on that front you know i for NIH i wanna ask you to answer this about the particulars of it but i ran one of my uh constituents had been um a scientist doing research on um alzheimer's and the clinical trial was shutdown and she was forced out and so it terminated not only her work but the scientific research that we would all benefit from two quick points before i run out of time um one is the secret service from the standpoint of your work with respect to um your protection. We did a lot of work, the um, a committee was set up after the attempted to to assassinate President Trump, well not candidate Trump then. Um, there were lot of deficiencies found frankly by what the Secret Service had done. I think they've improved what their work is. I'd encourage you to have your your police team do that. And then lastly, I know you a- answered with respect to Mister Pocan,

Uh, ma- uh, five minutes are up, please.

the ethics piece. We'd love to hear about what's going through with that.

Thank you. Would now recognize Mister Alford, please.

Thank you, Chairman Joyce and ranking member, and uh thank you for the justices for coming today. Really appreciate that. I just, I do wanna set the record straight as we begin though, um. While we all love hearings before we vote on the appropriation bills, um, we have a very aggressive uh schedule for these appropriation bills. The chairman's objective was to finish them all before the end of June. Uh, we actually got them done uh, by mid-June, uh, that facilitated the need for rapidity and trying to make sure that we got as much information as possible. Part of that included coming to the Supreme Court on March fifth, and we discussed many of these things. This was a bipartisan effort to go, uh, with your invitation to come and hear your budgetary needs. And so I appreciate that, uh, endeavor, I appreciate, uh, the members of this subcommittee who did go across the street to hear your concerns. And we heard some very disturbing deficiencies. Uh, and while we can't talk about all those in this public setting today, please know that those are noted, those were included in the consideration for the appropriations bill that we did uh complete. And uh, um, one of the issues that came up was the uh, need for a security entrance uh, for the Supreme Court building. Um, Justice Kagan, could you describe what this will look like and did we, uh, provide the adequate funding to make this happen?

Uh, I think we don't know exactly what it would look like, but we we um we are concerned about people coming into the building right now before they've been checked essentially and only being checked uh when they're in the building and we're concerned as well with the ability to enter um uh for for for cars to enter uh we've we've actually gone a significant way in addressing that issue essentially by closing off the street behind the court uh and we're very grateful to local authorities for their willingness to do that

i think the point we made at the time is we have the beautiful visitor center here at the capitol uh that was uh in part a security concern uh it's also a great visitor center it would be kind of mirrored in a smaller fashion across the street at the Supreme Court and also what the president has proposed with a new security entrance to the White House with a ballroom on top, but a security measure, uh, underneath in a bunker. So, uh, thank you for clearing that up. One of the things I did mention at our, uh, in-person meeting, which again I'm grateful for, was a growing concern about the threats that drones pose to government buildings and protected officials, not just across the street at the Supreme Court building, but at your homes as well. How is this Supreme Court preparing for that evolving threat and are there any additional authorities or resources that we should consider to make sure that, uh, you are protected?

Um.

And if if you would like to we could do this in a skiff at a later time, if you feel that it's something that needs to be addressed there or if you wanna

I I could say generally that we we share that concern generally.

address it generally.

Generally.

I think drone mitigation measures are certainly on security's radar.

Well, we wanna keep on top of that, and, uh, Chairman, uh, maybe

And I think Congressman, that there might uh

Mm-hmm.

there there might be ways to address what whether we have uh all the authority we need currently, or whether there needs to be additional statutory authority that would really allow us to deal with that issue.

that would be an interesting conversation. We I we're facing that here uh on the Hill as well. And in our state and local authorities, uh we just are wrapping up the FIFA World Cup in Kansas City, and then that was a concern as well, uh the authorities to actually uh defend against drone uh activity. Uh, last question, uh the court budget requests in recent years has included increased security funding for the justices of public threats against government officials, have continued to rise. Uh, you travel for speeches, teaching opportunities. How is security funded and coordinated when justices are traveling, particularly with respect to protecting your families?

Um, residential security remains at our house as normal. When when we're away, the house remains protected, so the the family is protected. And when we travel, we have our security details travel with us because, unfortunately, the threat travels with us. Um, you know, it doesn't just stay at the building.

If there are any gaps in that, where it needs additional funding, please let us know, alright. And with that, I yield back, Mister Chair.

Thank you, Mister Alfred. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop, for five minutes.

Thank you very much, Chairman. Thank you to the associate justices for your appearance and let me say at the outset that I fully support and appreciate uh the need for the upgraded security that has been requested and I think Congress will be responsive. um uh the supreme court contracts uh many of the security services and for example you contract with the shirt off group since twenty eighteen the services is provided include consultation on protecting uh your homes on review of the jobs leak investigation that was conducted by the marshal's office in addition the individuals who man the uh magnetometers at the court entrance are not members of the supreme court police but they work for an outside firm and each of these contracts can run into the millions of dollars yet the court does not have the same contracting obligations under federal law that other parts of the government do. Uh in the interest of transparency would the court consider publicly listing any contract that it has with an outside firm security or otherwise, uh whose annual value is greater than a million dollars.

i think we have um uh jess barrett and i have not considered that question or addressed that question so i think we would need to go back and and and take it to people who have thought about that issue more

ok alright well let me switch to uh uh another more policy uh driven uh concern uh as of july tenth of this year seventy five percent of President Trump's appointees to the circuit and district court judgeships over the combined course of his first term and the current term have been men. Additionally, eighty- four percent of the appointees have been white, male or female. And when looking across all of the active circuit and district court judges as of July tenth, regardless of which president appointed them, nearly sixty percent are men. Additionally, sixty-six percent are white. can you both speak to the importance of having a diverse federal bench that's representative of the country's demographics and might you also add the uh experiential and uh other diversity for the courts itself for the court itself in your choice of uh your clerk pool.

Well, I'll take the the the clerk pool uh if if that's ok um you know we we all run our chambers differently and each of us hires for himself or herself and so i can really only speak for myself on on on this um i i value diversity of all kinds i value diversity along the lines that you mentioned i value diversity in terms of backgrounds and um uh views and um uh you know to make sure that i get all different kinds of backgrounds and experiences when i'm talking with my clerks um uh in particular and uh i've um you know found over the years that it's it uh that that's perfectly possible to do um you know the the uh standards for a supreme court clerk are very high it requires outstanding uh law school records it requires you know two prior clerkships usually maybe one uh and judges who think very highly of the person sometimes now we we are looking at people who have uh worked in other jobs before they come here um and um and and and we still have more qualified people more exceptionally qualified people than any of us are able to take and uh i find over over time that um uh you you know that it's it's it's it's good to have diversity of background and experience and uh and that that is um you know very possible to do given our applicant pool now

thank you um very quickly i'm told that most of the justices and their clerks uh read your briefs uh electronically Uh, so I just wanted to ask why the court requires the litigants to print and to file forty copies of their briefs in most instances which can sometimes cost them up to ten thousand dollars. Um, is there any, are there basis for income-based waivers and doesn't the printing requirement uh now uh seem to be unnecessary?

We do have um s- I'm in.

Go ahead.

Oh no. We do have um informal preparer status, which um helps indigent litigants. I will say that some of us do read hard copies. I am old school in that respect. But um I think those questions are ones that the clerk's office works out to help um those who cannot afford.

Thank you. Now the chair recognizes the Vice Chair of this committee, Mister Lolota, for his findings.

Thank you, Chairman. Uh, Justice, it's good to see you, it was good to see you on March fifth at the court. And uh, we appreciate you being here today. Justice Kagan, uh, thank you for your warm comments on Senator Graham. Uh, I, like many Americans, watched uh your interaction with him during your confirmation hearing. Uh, it was a good moment of bipartisan candor. Uh, one that we don't have enough of in this town, and I wanna say thanks for not only that exchange but for your opening remarks that addressed his commitment to service to our great country. Um, I wanted to discuss some of the budget, huh, requests, and you're asking for eighty nine million dollars for security. including twenty four seven protection, additional protective personnel and cyber security enhancements. Uh Justice Barrett, can you briefly and broadly express how the change in the threat environment has necessitated that higher level of investment by the Congress?

Think it's because um you know when when I was a Law Clerk, Justice Scalia did not have protection all the time. Justice Kagan mentioned she didn't have it when she began, but now the threats are constant and they are always there and so it's it's necessary now in daily activities unfortunately i i honestly feel like if for the sake of my privacy i wish it weren't so but it's necessary for protection in daily activities to have a security detail and frankly our detail one reason for our uh longer term plan to increase the size of our details to come closer to cabinet level officiants um cabinet level officials is burnout and exhaustion. A detail of four to eight people when they have to monitor around the clock, when they drop me off, I think I might have been mentioning this in our meeting on March fifth, when they drop me off at eleven o'clock at night and then it's the same team that has to come back the next morning, I mean it's just a lot of hours.

Thank you.

And we could

Your feedback then and now is very instructive for this uh

could we may may I add just a bit is that uh

Of course.

um you know this began um in part because of congress um and it began in about twenty sixteen i think was when justice sculia died and he died in a place in texas and there

twenty sixteen

were no security people in the immediate area i think the nearest was a couple of hours away the nearest marshals and um and we're very grateful because congressman isa and congressman cummings came to visit the court and they were doing an um investigation he mentioned of the secret service and they were doing one at the time and that required that they look at different uh institutions and departments security personnel and they came over to the court and they said the chief justice to the chief justice this was how the chief described it to us they said kind of like we think you're crazy you know that that you have less security than the director of the office of personnel management does and we think that you have to do better and that was really the start when congressman isa and congressman cummings came to the chief justice and the chief justice reported to us and you know we were a little bit like do we really because it's easier living life without security than living life with security but we started and we started uh slowly incrementally carefully making sure that we balanced all the necessary factors then of course the jobs leak happened and that really increased the urgency of the entire thing but we have been working on this now for about a decade and and actually i think are grateful to congress for coming to us and saying you have to up your game in this area

and there's still more work to do in this area i think that both sides of the aisle take your security seriously uh justice kagan you mentioned earlier in your testimony the wanting to decrease your reliance on the us marshals and increase your reliance on your own uh court police can you describe how the impetus behind that uh dichotomy

yeah nothing against the us marshals um uh who do a terrific job but i think this allows us to um to you know we 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 and um and what several members have suggested i think is absolutely true that you want a completely stable workforce so people who are providing you with security really know you and to the extent that we're relying on the martial service they're coming, they're going, they have other responsibilities, they probably won't be committed to an individual justice or to the court full-time.

I think I agree with your point, uh, you should have a separation of powers in your own autonomy, your own security, and we should want to empower you to do that. Uh, very briefly, um, in the world of finite budgeting, as you do more of one thing you by necessity often do less of one thing and we're right to consider doing more with respect to your security. Are we missing something when we do that? Are we doing something less when we do more with security? Are you uh doing less work? Are you delivering less opinions? There's are we somehow degrading your ability to deliver justice in other areas?

I think we uh carefully steward our resources and I think our budget reflects the needs that we have to continue fulfilling our constitutional mission.

Thank you. Appreciate you being here. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Uh, thank you, sir. And now uh we recognize like the wedding feast at Caney and we say the best for last in in our Cardinal Womack,

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

former head of this committee.

And uh, what a joy it is to have our justices in front of us this morning. I've been around these precincts for a while now. I remember back in the day when it was Justice Kennedy and uh Justice Breyer that were here. You two have done very well today, but not quite as entertaining as those two guys. They were fine. I I I can promise you that. Um, and let me also acknowledge a couple of familiar faces. in the crowd judge dow uh george everly who is back at the court now and the great work that they do um uh we've had terrific relationships down through the years and that has not changed with the court and so i commend you for that and for this front row of people who obviously um are your support staff and help this court continue its important mission

um

I don't have any budget related questions, but in my remaining time I'm gonna give you an opportunity to speak to the rest of the people in this room. When I came in, and I came in late this morning, there was a line of people outside this door and I'm sure that line is probably still there. And I was taken aback by how young these people look. So if you look beyond the front row, uh in this room this morning, you will see the faces of young people uh from all walks of life who all to me look like they're at least under twenty-five years of age. And they are driven here by, for different reasons. I'm gonna give you both an opportunity in the remaining time I have three minutes to speak to the hearts and minds of these young people, who one day could be sitting exactly where you're sitting today uh and give them hope that what we do in this country is and what you do in the court is part of our genius as a country and um Justice Kagan I'm gonna let you go first uh you have these young people's complete uh attention this morning

you're you're raising the bar here um uh thank you so much congressman wilmack for that wonderful opportunity um i think i would say to the young people in this audience and the young people everywhere um what is just true of our democracy that it it it rests in their hands and how we function as a country going forward um is in large measure up to them and um and that they should take all the opportunities that they can to learn about our country and to learn about its history and to learn about our governmental institutions, and then to figure out how they can do better, and leave the world a better place than they found it. And um uh and i think that i am i am optimistic that this generation of people will do just that.

Justice Barrett.

Hear hear, i agree with everything Justice Kagan said, and i would add that i am heartened that so many young people are here, and waiting in the line to want to see this uh this hearing. because i think it shows engagement in our democratic process and i think what they have seen is really constructive bipartisan effort in this hearing to address these issues and i hope they see that in the courts work we work hard to you know disagree well when we disagree and we agree a lot of the time and i think that kind of constructive engagement and not just throwing your hands up and saying i'm not gonna deal with people with whom i disagree is what we need to move forward

great advice Thank you for the great courtesies you've extended my,

Seems

yes, I'll ea-

seems to me that's a nine O decision.

Yeah, that's that's a nine O, and that that's pretty rare, but that's a nine O decision. Thank you for the many courtesies you and your teams have extended uh to my office, uh and to this committee, and we respect the work of the court and uh continued best wishes. I yield back.

Thank you.

Uh, I will admit that Judge Dow is getting off awfully easy today, but that's for another day um the ranking member of the full committee has asked for a a moment to address something that she didn't get to in her statement

thank you very much mr uh chairman and i want to say to mister wolmack which is a very um uh the gravitas of what you've asked and the responses are really heartening and should be to uh all of us and mostly including our young people who are today who are hungry uh to be engaged in it bob My question goes back to something I was talking about and Justice Kagan, it was just a couple of years ago, this has to do with the uh you you said the Supreme Court should consider an independent enforcement mechanism for its ethics code, involving a panel of respected federal judges. Do you still support that?

You know, I personally do. I think that we would be better off with uh an enforcement mechanism,

Great. Yeah.

and I think, you know, not to say i think that my colleagues are taking this code incredibly seriously

yeah i i i understand

i think we we are all um you know making every effort and i think successful efforts to live by it um but uh if nothing else for public confidence it's like

right for the integrity of the court

um and also our enforcement mechanism can you know um also make clear eh not every accusation not every charge has anything to it and can make clear yeah um uh this is off base this is wrong there's nothing here

so

um but uh but i think that uh it would be uh a good thing to do as you say i think it's really important that it come from the judiciary itself

right

there are real complexities about how that would be done but um

mmm

i have not changed my mind

yeah my mind and justice barrett do you you support that effort

i'm less i'm less certain i mean i'm certainly fully committed to the code as are all of our colleagues but because of the some of the complexities that justice kagan identified

mmm mmm

i'm just not quite sure um the judiciary moves slowly the court moves slowly we have yes turtles everywhere because of that and and and i think that if we had an enforceable a body to enforce the code it would have to come from within the judiciary mmm yes and i just think that it's a question of who selects the judges how is the panel comprised there just a lot of oh complexity to the questions

well there's lots of integrity with regard to the court there's no doubt about that but a mechanism every other body has that we have a a committee all the federal uh uh uh courts do it's just the supreme court that does it and it should come from the judiciary and my hope it was that that be for the integrity of the court we're all under real fire these days and that includes the court i think we have to demonstrate at every turn that we are understanding that uh uh uh of the um the the kind of morality that we need to have and that we need to demonstrate to the public about how important we take the roles that we have and that we're not somehow abridging the system or abusing the system thank you very very much mr.

with that our time is concluded i would like to thank both justice kagan and justice coney-barrett for their being here today and for your answers uh there may be some members of this panel who would also like to submit questions for the record please submit any questions for the record to the subcommittee staff within seven days this subcommittee stands adjourned