FY 2027 Budget Estimates and Justification: Supreme Court of the United States

Before we begin, I'd like to just take a moment to remember our colleague, Lindsey Graham. He was a statesman and a friend to everybody here. Um, he had a just unique ability to bring levity to a situation no matter how serious it was. Just as Keg and I recall his engagement with you when you were coming through your confirmation hearing, that um, we're still laughing about today and and I think it it it it allowed you to show a very human side of yourself. But Lindsay had that ability to do just that, uh, and and I think it at very appropriate times and we're gonna miss him very dearly and I just want everybody to know that that he, his family, her and her staff are in our prayers. To turn to the matter at hand, this is the third and final hearing of fiscal year twenty twenty-seven cycle for the Financial Services and General Government subcommittee. First, I'd like to welcome our distinguished witnesses. Justice Kagan and Justice Barrett of the United States Supreme Court. It's been a number of years since Supreme Court Justice has testified before the Senate, so I want to thank you both for being here today. The work of the Supreme Court is of paramount importance, and I look forward to hearing from you about the resources that the Court needs to do that work. Before I turn to the Sur- Supreme Court's budget request, I want to direct a few words to my colleagues and to those of you that are here in attendance today about the actual purpose of this hearing. Unlike federal departments, the Supreme Court is not a creature of Congress, but it's a creature of the Constitution itself. It's equal in dignity to the Congress and to the President. And unlike the legislative and executive powers, the founders crafted the judicial power to be independent from the political branches. That independent judicial authority characterized in Alexander Hamilton's words, by "neither force nor will, but merely judgment." is the best expedient to secure a steady, upright, and an impartial administration of the laws. It's crucial that we respect that independence, which is embedded in the separation of powers that forms the backbone of American government. The judicial branch is not wholly insulated from Congress, however. Congress's power of the purse imparts not only the authority, but the responsibility to fund every part of the government, including the Supreme Court. It's therefore important for our branches to work together to ensure that the Court has the resources necessary to perform its constitutional duties. With these facts in mind, I want to be clear that this hearing is about the Supreme Court's physical, operational, and security needs, and will be conducted in light of the Court's unique relationship to Congress. This hearing is not a forum for discussion about the merits of specific cases, past, present, or future. It's not about when the justices should recuse themselves from cases or anything along those lines. I encourage my colleagues to focus their questions accordingly. And as a reminder, each senator will have one round of eight minutes to ask their questions. I also expect that our guests today will maintain order in the hearing room so that we conclude our business with efficiency and civility. We'll have no tolerance for interruptions today, and any demonstration of disorderly conduct will result in prompt removal. The Supreme Court's budget request for physical year twenty twenty seven seeks two thousand and seven million in discretionary funding. This amount is thirteen point nine million, or seven point two percent increase over the total amount of discretionary funding preside provided for the Supreme Court, for physical year twenty twenty six. The requested increase is driven by an increasingly dangerous threat environment, and the recognition that more resources are needed to counteract this concerning reality. There's no denying that we're experiencing a disturbing level of violence against those who serve in the highest levels of government. President Trump has now survived three assassination attempts in the past two years. Yesterday was the second anniversary of the attempted assassination in Butler Pennsylvania where the assassin's bullet actually drew blood. But for a millimeter, President Trump would have been killed. Tragically, one American was killed and two more were critically injured. That's hardly the only instance. Our colleague Rand Paul suffered felonious assault. Some fi- someone firebombed Governor Josh Shapiro's home. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise narrowly survived an assassination attempt as more congressmen stood in the line of fire. Of course, political violence is not solely directed to elected officials, as we released recently saw this with the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk. And particularly, relevant for today's hearing, the Supreme Court has not escaped this dark trend of politically motivated violence. Following the twenty twenty-two leak of the Dobbs draft opinion, a man who was intent, I presume, on preserving the Roe decision tried to kill Justice Cavanaugh at his home, bringing with him a gun, a knife, pepper spray, zip ties, lock picking equipment, and duct tape. Separately, Justice Alito's staff opened an envelope to find a white powdery substance inside. Ultimately, the substance was harmless But it was intended to terrorize the court and intimidate and obstruct operations. We also observed hundreds of demonstrators gathering outside the justices' homes, attempting to intimidate and influence them. An apparent violation of eighteen USC fifteen O seven, yet without a single arrest by the Department of Justice. Justice Barrett was a target of a swatting attack, intended to create an environment that could have created a potential injury for her or her or her family. These disturbing instances forced us to be be forces to confront the reality that the physical security of each member of the Supreme Court is a matter of constitutional consequence. Though maintaining operational security might require obscuring some details, I'm hopeful that the justices today will be able to testify in a manner that helps us understand these threats. Accompanying the rise in physical threats is also a rise in cyber threats. In January, a man pleaded guilty to hacking the Supreme Court's electronic filing system, at least twenty-five times. We've observed a surge in cyber threats directed toward the lower courts. It's not hyperbole to say that the attacks of this nature can be a matter of life and death. Sealed court documents can include information about confidential informants and classified national security information, not to mention social security numbers, sensitive medical records, and trade secrets that would be essential to our economic dominance. The risk of insecure and unreliable electronic court records is not a risk that we can accept. To defend against these threats and avoid the proliferation of attacks currently facing the lower courts, the Supreme Court's budget seeks a modest program increase to enhance its cyber security personnel. Thank you for appearing before the subcommittee today, Justices Kagan and Barrett. I'm pleased to have you before us today, and I look forward to our testimony. But before you begin, I now want to turn to my colleague, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Jack Reed, for his opening statement.

Well, thanks very much, Chairman Hagerty, for convening this very important hearing. and i wanna thank justice kagan and justice barrett for appearing before us i also want to uh again um note the passing of a dear colleague senator lindsey graham i served in the house and the senate with lindsey and i will describe him briefly as a passionate patriot indeed he was that uh madam justice madam justice this is a long overdue opportunity for us to question the members of the court about its budget and operations, and I'll stress budget and operations. Uh, this is a, I believe, the first time since twenty eleven that a justice is testified before uh the Senate, and uh I would hope this would be an annual occurrence, uh not a a decade by decade occurrence. Um The Supreme Court is, under our Constitution, the final uh Arbitrator of the Law of the Land, uh, but it is still accountable, Congress, for taxpayers' funds which you use to operate. And today's hearing is about your fiscal FY twenty twenty-seven budget request, a budget that has grown significantly in the last few years. We know, as the Chairman has pointed out, that you have faced a series of threatening attempts, you and your colleagues, assassination attempts to on-line cyber security threats, And we know that the number of threats are increasing each year, and it is a substantial justification for budget increases to protect the court and protect the Constitution. So I look forward from hearing from both of you about these issues and the the needs that you have to protect yourself and your colleagues. Um In regard to these threats, court created its own residential security operation and congress responded to the request uh with a twenty eight million dollar uh uh appropriation but weeks after that cr was signed the court began privately lobbying for another thirty million dollars and we understand security is important but we also understand that uh this should be an open process and that your request should come to us and the committee to dispo- be disposed of as we typically do with oil appropriations and I would urge you to adopt that practice. Um, this committee has responded to the court's request, as I said, for more money and we hope to do it again, but I must point out that uh unless we have a top-line uh budget, both domestic and defense, it's gonna be difficult to fund domestic, particularly domestic agencies like the court. And I hope that the Chair Collins and Vice Chair Murray will reach that point very soon. Um, the other thing I would just point out is that, and I know this came up this morning, is that you have adopted a Code of Ethics, uh, but a Code of Ethics without effective enforcement is more aspirational than practical. And I would hope that that this year in your budget request, you would include funds for in enforcement structure as well as uh simply the code existing um i'm very honored we all are by your presence today um and uh i indeed look forward to uh listening to your responses and to cooperating with you so that we can strengthen the court and provide the support you need to carry out one of the most principal duties in America which is uh making sure the Constitution is alive and well throughout the nation. Uh, thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator Reid, and now I'd like to recognize Justice Kagan uh, Justice Kagan, I look forward to your opening remarks and I'll remind you that your full statement will be at your desk.

Thank you, Chairman Haggerty, and thank you, Ranking Member Reid, uh, for giving Justice Barrett and me the opportunity to appear here before you today i hope we can do it more than once every three decades that doesn't seem too much to ask for um uh to present the supreme court's fiscal year twenty twenty seven budget request i'd like to start senator hagerty if i if i might the same way you did by uh speaking a bit about senator graham um and i did this uh this morning as well but you provided me with a i i talked this morning about exactly what you talked about first i want to say that uh the entire court uh wants to send its condolences to senator graham's family and all his colleagues and friends uh in the senate and elsewhere um all of us have been through the judiciary committee and most of us through the judiciary committee while senator graham sat on it and there is a great deal of affection uh throughout the entire court for senator graham a great deal of affection and respect uh i wanna add though my personal uh uh a note here um uh i was nominated to the court by a democratic president it is not very often that a republican votes for a nominee from a democratic president as similarly it's not very often that a democratic senator votes for a nominee of a republican president those are the times we live in and it's especially uncommon when such a cross party if you will votes come from somebody in a deep red or deep um and notwithstanding that uh senator graham voted for my confirmation to be a supreme court justice and i was very grateful for that and i was enormously impressed um by the respect with uh with which senator graham treated me throughout the process the seriousness with which he took the process and as i say grateful for his vote at the end of the process but senator hager you referenced something you know uh in this um everybody has been talking about how funny senator graham uh was um uh but it's harder to make somebody else look funny than to be funny yourself and i have to say that day senator graham made me look funny and um that conversation that we had about what i was doing on christmas one year uh is the conversation that i was told by many people afterward sealed the deal on my confirmation so i was uh i was very thankful to senator graham for that and for all his kindnesses through that process and again just want to repeat my and and the broader court's uh deepest condolences to his sister to all his friends and family on his untimely passing

thank you very much for that justice geoghegan i appreciate that in fact his sister is going to be sworn in during the course of this um so you may see some of us moving in and out to to address that Thank you.

I would like to note at the outset how appreciative we are of this subcommittee's 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 meeting with a couple of you um about these matters and our respective staffs also speak and share information regularly. 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 of the Court, and another for care of the buildings 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 i t 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, the Supreme Court's 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 entirely for security expenses. The majority of last year's funding increase went to shifting the responsibility for residential security from the marshal service to the supreme court police and ranking member read um i'd be delighted to speak at some uh greater length about what you talked about about our receiving one appropriation and then another specifically for this purpose for enhancing residential security i first joined the court in twenty ten our security was very different at that time The Supreme Court Police focused almost exclusively on protecting the building. And as for cyber security, well, our IT department focused on supporting the latest Blackberry devices. I didn't have a security team of my own, and 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. We started by expanding personal security beyond the Chief Justice, so that associate justices also received small security details, much too small as it later turned out. As threat assessments called for larger details, and as overtime costs correspondingly rose, we requested funding from 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 leak of the court's Dobbs opinion, we expanded our residential security and threat assessment activities still further. Similarly, as online attacks grew in number and sophistication, we requested additional cyber security resources. Our strategy has been consistent. expand incrementally but effectively to meet evolving security challenges. We aren't 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. especially 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 to work cooperatively together. Our respective police department's 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 substantial thirty-eight percent annual increase in threats this year, which follows a twenty-five percent increase last year. For some of those for some of us, those threats have come very close indeed. as the chairman indicated and all of us live with the knowledge that they may again materialize but as the chief justice has said most recently in his annual statement 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 and grateful to our appropriators in the senate and the house the resources that are necessary to achieve that goal. While we cannot comment on decisions or pending cases, Justice Barrett and I are happy to answer any budget related questions you may have. Thank you very much, Mister Chairman.

And I'm going to um now turn it to the Committee Chair, Senator Collins.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman. First of all, let me welcome our distinguished witnesses today. It's a great honor to have you here, uh, to respond to our questions. I could not help but think, as I heard Justice Kagan's comments about the thirty-eight percent increase in the number of threats, that it is increasingly dangerous to be a Supreme Court Justice these days. And it's appalling to me that some of the rhetoric is coming from public officials on both sides of the aisle, who should know better than to levy personal and political attacks against the judiciary and the court specifically. For example, a senator stood in front of the Supreme Court building and called out two members by name saying that they had released the whirlwind and that they will pay the price. Other public officials have called the court corrupt, out of control, and serving an extremist agenda. This overheated language. This completely inappropriate rhetoric against the Supreme Court endangers the lives of the justices and erodes public trust in our system of government. I believe that all of us must avoid that kind of dangerous and disturbing rhetoric because it could in fact trigger violence. So with that as an introduction, let me turn to some specific questions for you. Justice Barrett, the Supreme Court is taking over residential security for the justices from the US Marshal service. What was the rationale for that change.

Thank you, Chair Collins. Um, the Marshalls was always designed to be temporary. They couldn't continue to staff us. In fact, one reason for our supplemental request that was somewhat unexpected, is that the Marshalls unexpectedly told us that they would not be able to provide, continue providing the residential, um, protection, and that they were gonna end it. quicker than we had anticipated. They themselves were just stretched thin. So we had always wanted to take it over ourselves, um, but we were forced to do that on a quicker time-line. And we are now fully doing it within the Supreme Court police through a combination of our full-time officers and contractors.

Thank you. Just as Kagan in the Supreme Court's building and grounds account, There is a request for six point five million dollars to begin the process for an exterior screening facility for visitors to the court. Could you explain why the court needs that separate facility?

Yes, uh, right now visitors walk into the court and that's where they're checked, that's where they are sent through the magnet. magnometer and you know checked for weapons and so forth and just as um the capital decided that for security reasons it wished to create a a visitor's center that was off the main premises so although all the uh appropriate security could be checks could be done off premises that's what we are looking into as well.

thank you justice kagan as you know the federal judicial center publishes a reference manual for federal judges to use when handling cases that involve scientific evidence. Uh, the center whose board is chaired by the Chief Justice published its latest version of the manual on December thirty-first of last year. I understand that you wrote the foreword to this edition. I he am aware of concerns that this version included a chapter that in the judgment of some people disfavored a particular class of litigants by suggesting that contested issues were not in fact conge- contested. Are you aware of this controversy?

I I have become aware of it. Um, as you say, I wrote the foreword, the foreword. It's just a a page long thing that the federal judicial center asked me to provide as other justices have provided for um other editions of the book um so i hadn't read the chapter in question prior to that time actually i still haven't read it but i know that the the controversy that you're um you're referring to which is about the climate science chapter and whether there were statements made within that chapter treating this uh treating as uncontested things that many people continue to contest and the head of the federal judicial center um judge uh Rosenberg has engaged with um uh the people who have made those criticisms and those objections uh in the end the federal judicial center has withdrawn that chapter from the book on the um view that uh anything that gets so many people riled up and any you know and and anything that so many people think wow that was way too hasty um there is there is still lots of disagreement about things that you presented as entirely agreed upon uh should not be in a book of this kind the entire purpose of this book really is not to take positions on contested and contestable matters it's it's it's to help judges um assist judges uh scientific issues but not on a you know not with any kind of slant either way and because uh so many people did think that that chapter was slanted in a particular direction um uh uh uh judge Rosenberg decided to take it out of the book i know that she is engaged with members of congress um uh about her decision about um where to you know what what to do next about how to make sure that the processes that the federal judicial center uses are are good ones and uh that a situation like this does not come up again uh the federal judicial center is a generally terrific organization and that's why you know i was glad when they asked me like write a few paragraphs introducing the book this is a book that's existed for thirty years and has uh in different editions and has assisted countless numbers of judges during that time Uh, so I was glad to do that and, um, I think that Judge Rosenberg's, uh, hope is that, um, things will be learned from this experience and, um, and that we won't, uh, that the Federal Judicial Center won't ever find itself in this position again.

My thanks to you both for your service.

Thank you, Senator Collins. Um, and I want to thank both of you for appearing today again. Senator Collins alluded to the fact that it's becoming increasingly dangerous to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. The statistics underscore that. But beyond the statistics, there's a human aspect to all of this as well. Uh, that's the fact that you and your families have to live in an escalated threat environment. And so I'd like to start with you, Justice Kagan. You've been on the bench for sixteen years at the Supreme Court. Um, you've seen the environment change, and if you could just elaborate on how it's changed and how it's affected you and your family

uh yeah um uh i i joined the court in twenty ten and it was an entirely different world then uh we did everything yeah i just walked out on the street i had no security with me at any time i drove back and forth uh to work by myself um you know you know every so often when i went out to do a major speech uh security personnel would accompany me there um um but uh honestly we none of us particularly thought about it at that time we started thinking about it in twenty sixteen and um the occasion of that was justice scalia's passing uh justice scalia went down to texas for uh a trip and uh and and and when he died uh the there were no security personnel in the immediate environment the closest marshals were some two hours away and um and that made people a little bit uh sit up and take notice and right after that uh two members of the house uh congressman uh isa and congressman cummings they were in the midst of an uh uh um exploration of the various security services provided to uh people in government and particularly uh with respect to the secret service and the way the chief justice described uh the conversation that they had with him to us was this the uh congressman isa and cummings came into the chief justice's office and said you know we've been taking a a a long hard look at security in different parts of the government and we think you're out of your mind uh that they said you know the the office of uh the director of the office of personnel management has more security than the supreme court justices do and surely the supreme court justices are doing more things that are more controversial on a more continuing basis than the director of the office of personnel management so the chief justice came into our conference one day and and sort of told us about this conversation and said you know things have gotta change and we started to change them i mean there was a little bit of like oh do we really need this because you know it's it's more pleasant to live without security than it is to live with security so there was a little bit of resistance but i think people recognized the wisdom of what the congressman had told us and so we started incrementally and um you know to increase security presence we started to think about each individual just as having a separate detail that knew their their practices that knew the way uh they lived that knew the kinds of security needs that they had and then the the the big ramp up after that there was you know sort of an incremental ramp up and the big ramp up came with the leak of the dobbs opinion when the when the threats the threat level really um dramatically increased for uh some of my colleagues and uh and that's when um uh there was you know it the the what what had been going on acquired even more urgency so uh i think that that's the history of the thing right now uh each of us has a detail of between four and eight security people uh and they accompany us pretty much everywhere So life has um changed a great deal for all of us.

It certainly has since twenty ten, e- even yesterday here at the Capitol. There was a man apprehended and arrested, pulling up to one of the barricades here at the Capitol, asking for directions to the Supreme Court and he had a gun in his lap.

Hmm.

So it's uh it it's striking and I'm I'm I'm I'm glad we're focusing on this now. Justice Bar- you've obviously served a shorter period of time than Justice Kagan, but I'd like to know your perspective as well and how it's affecting you your family and what you've perceived as the the threat.

Thank you, Chairman Hagerty. Um, yeah, I've experienced it in a very personal way, and I can share just a few of my own experiences. Um, there was a time, and it was shortly after the Dobbs leak, when the threats to my life were particularly intense, and my security detail thought it was a good idea for me to have a bullet-proof vest. So I took it home from the house, went into my bedroom, threw it down, and turned around, and my twelve year old son was in the doorway, and he said, " What's that?" Um, and when I took this job i didn't really anticipate being in the position of having to explain to one of my children what a bullet proof vest was and why his mom had it um so that was that was one issue it was reported in the news that about six weeks ago i was the victim of a swatting incident at my house one of our teenage sons walked out the front door getting ready to head out with friends and the street was full of county policemen and then i also had my residential security presence there They had responded to a false alarm saying that there was a gun gunshots being fired inside my home. And I was very grateful for the residential security because they were able to coordinate with the county police before the county police entered my home. And the other thing I'll say, and this is not unique to me and my colleagues, but this is experienced by people throughout the federal judiciary, are anonymized deliveries and they often come in the name of the murdered son of one of our district judges. Um, the message that these, you know, pizzas and other things that are sent to us, you know, is is fairly clear. They're often sent to members of our immediate and extended families as well. They're meant to intimidate and they're meant to harass. And as the Chief Justice said in his year-end report, justices and judges throughout the country continue to do their jobs without fear or favor, but it is a very threatening environment.

And if I might add just a a a teeny bit, um, this is a problem that not only supreme court justices face but judges all across the united states federal judges and state judges as well and most of them have considerably less in the way of security resources than we do so it's um uh an especial issue to try to figure out how to get better security for judges all over the united states even as

mmm

we focus today on the supreme court's security needs

uh i'll come to another point that i think concerns all of us and it has an impact on your security as well and that's the leaking of information uh coming from the supreme court um if you think about the leaks of confidential supreme court communications the impact of that uh you've as you've both described uh the dobbs case is obviously the most famous one and that precipitated you know untold intimidation threats an attempt to murder one of the justices uh, in- in- incredibly sad, but there have been others. In twenty twenty four, um, there was a leak about court deliberations over cases that involve presidential immunity. Um, just in April of this year there was a leak of internal memoranda discussing, disc- discussing a request to stay President Obama's clean power plan. Um, and if you think about it, the Dobbs decision I think underscores this, the leaking of this information dramatically increases the security risk on on justices. Um, and Justice Kagan, I'll start with you. Are these sorts of leaks from the Supreme Court acceptable?

Uh, they're not. Um, it dramatically increases security risks. It also dramatically changes the way we do our business internally, or at least has the potential to do so. I mean, the way, uh, we relate to each other depends so much on honest communication among the nine of us. And if the nine of us don't have trust in one another and don't have trust in, in, the, the, the, one another and the and all the people who work for us um uh then those kinds of honest conversations that we need to do our business are not going to take place or they're at least going to uh be frustrated so it's a it's i think it's it is a problem that has frustrated every single one of the justices um uh because of the security issues but because it uh you know it's just not the way a court should operate and uh not the way a court can operate if it wants to have the kind of deliberations that are the backbone of what we do.

I I appreciate that and I really appreciate you making this statement publicly and on the record because I think it's critically important that a leader like yourself make this clear to everybody. Uh Justice Barrett I'll just close with you, are are there any actions undertaken, any changes in procedures that will prevent leaks like this from occurring?

We're doing our best, we have instituted protocols to try to keep better track of who has access to documents, who's touched documents, where they've been printed. Um, we have always required employees to sign a confidentiality agreement, but recently we required employees began requiring employees to sign a nondisclosure agreement, Mm-hmm. um, which we we do have carve outs for whistleblowers and that sort of thing, and those carve outs go beyond what federal statutes require, but we're hoping that driving the need for confidentiality home with these NDAs um will will just be an additional um an additional check on employees who are sharing information inappropriately and often illegally

Well for all the reasons Justice Kagan mentioned I I can't say I I can't support it any more than I do I appreciate the effort and thank you uh I'll turn it now to Ranking Member Reid.

Well thank you very much Mr. Chairman again just as thank you for your presence and your testimony I just wanna pick up on a point that Senator Collins made about some outrageous statements that are being made by public figures and i can't think of a more prominent one than the president of the united states so on february twentieth following the decision on tariffs he said disgrace to our nation fools lapdogs to the rhinos and radical left democrats and very unpatriarch and disloyal to the constitution and he was describing the supreme court on march fifteenth he posted our country was unnecessarily ransacked by the united states supreme court which is a little more than a weaponized and an unjust political organization. Now I don't agree with anything he said but if there's anyone in the country that commands more attention uh it's the president and uh I think that behavior is very dangerous to the court and to our whole system and I just want that to be part of the record. Uh Justice Kagan you asked for an opportunity

If I if I could Senator Reyes, wherever these come from

please.

uh and um you know whatever political figure says them whatever party that political figure is a member of um it it it uh these statements are are are really unhelpful they're dangerous um in terms of individual justice's security and um and they're they're not appropriate in the way to treat a coordinated branch of government i think the chief justice had a year-end statement last year where he talked about this issue and he talked about like criticism is fair game i mean go for it you know life in the big city is that you're subject to all kinds of criticism um but intimidation is a different thing entirely and when political figures of any stripe are trying to intimidate judges and justices to um do things that they like rather than uh the things that they don't um that that's where we really have crossed a line

i think you're exactly right your honor and you said it well uh you wanted a moment to talk about the process where the twenty eight million dollar request was made through appropriation channels and then thirty million appeared suddenly through private channels please

yeah uh i think justice barrett um reference this a bit and and first off we apologize if we um did anything so procedurally improper But the the reason for the additional ask, if you will, um, was that be- is that we were suddenly confronted with, uh, the loss of US Marshal protection. And we th- we thought that we were going to have US Marshal protection at our residences for another six months. And all of a sudden learned from the Justice Department that that was going to be impossible. And so we had to do some sort of

Mm-hmm.

quick footwork. to try to get additional monies in order to cover that six month gap and as i say if we um did that in a way that was procedurally less than optimal um my apologies

well uh your security is more important than procedural niceties so um there's no issue here uh i mentioned in my statement uh that the court has adopted a court of conduct but without an enforcement mechanism it's more aspirational than real, uh i- i- is there any, and both you and uh Justice Comey, is there any attempts now to create a very effective enforcement system?

Let me start? Um, guess I would start by saying I regard the Code of Ethics as more than aspirational. We've all nine made a commitment to - to follow it, so I consider it binding on me. Um, i would also say that we all draw on resources within the court to make sure you know to to help us to the end of discharging our ethical responsibilities whenever i have a question i consult our legal counsel um inside the court on the question of enforceability i mean i think you've put your finger on what is a very difficult question it's a complex question it's one that we've talked about a lot as a conference and i don't think it's one that we're entirely at rest on yet if i could just say a few words about some of the I mean, one is it's just tricky to figure out who would be the entity to enforce such a code. You know, sometimes people have floated the idea of an inspector general. Well, if that comes from the executive branch, to have someone from the executive branch inside the court supervising the court's work, well, that's that's a problem that needs to come from within the judiciary. And then you have the awkwardness of, well, we review the work of other judges within the system, but then they would be sitting on the committee to review ethical complaints and that creates its own awkwardnesses so we've talked about the possibility of senior judges or retired judges but then there's still a structural problem because then you need to have an appeal process the way the way the lower courts work is they judge these things at the circuit court level but then you can appeal it up to the judicial uh to the judicial conference's uh committee on judicial conduct and then up to the full judicial conference itself So that mechanism would put again judges from lower courts reviewing our code. So I'm not saying that it would be impossible, you know, to have an enforcement mechanism, but I think it's been complicated to figure out exactly what that would be, given the position of the Supreme Court within our constitutional structure and within the judicial branch of government. But I do wanna stress, Ranking Member Reid, that none of my colleagues, and certainly not I, um, think ourselves above the law or above ethics in any way.

and and i wanna say i agree with that um uh i come out in a somewhat uh you know i think for me i have uh i'm not so much um in flux on this issue i have come to rest on the need for an enforcement mechanism if the enforcement mechanism is of the right kind it's not because i think that we're ignoring the code of conduct i do not think that at all um um but it's important i think for public perception of the court i think it's also important to um to to to to give the justices a way to show that some of the charges against them are you know so much poppycock um

yes

uh and and i i completely agree with uh justice barrett that this cannot be something where the executive appoints somebody some somebody or congress appoints somebody or has a particular role in the process it has to come from within the judicial branch itself if the if the supreme court is to remain uh independent and uh it's incredibly important that it remain independent um uh uh you know i think that we can figure out a way around some of the complexities that uh justice barrett talked about about mmm using senior judges or retired judges um uh to be our policeman if you will even though i agree it's a it's a little bit of an awkward structure to have policemen for the judges who are at the apex of the of the branch. So, um, uh, agree with everything Justice Barrett said about the need to do this within, uh, the judiciary, um, and the complexities of that. Um, I I would say we should, uh, find an enforcement mechanism.

Thank you. Uh, just a final point, which is I think the court uh has not escaped uh the the uh situation of every other branch of government which is according to a polling from pew forty eight percent of americans have a favorable opinion of the supreme court that's down from seventy percent five years ago and i think putting in these types of institutional checks might give more confidence to to the the people that you know there is nothing wrong at the court the other thing though it it uh it goes back to the initial point of these uh inflammatory statements made by uh public figures politicians etcetera are not helpful to the court's prestige i think we should recognize the court plays a unique and fundamental role and uh we should respect that role thank you very much mr.

senator durbin

thanks mr. chairman thank you all for being here i wanna follow up senator reed has touched two areas that i wanted to address And one is the statements made by elected officials and others, uh, derogatory of judges, justices and the court. Tomorrow we're considering, uh, attorney general, acting attorney general Todd Blanch's nomination, who has said of the court that they are rogue activist judges and repeatedly claim the administration is, quote, at war with the federal judiciary. Uh, that kind of rhetoric, I think, is unacceptable on either side of table democrat or republican liberal conservative it just inflames people and has them thinking in terms of violence that may reach physical violence if we're not careful so i wanted just to add the chorus that uh uh violence is unacceptable at any stage of the uh spectrum secondly we had some terrible incidents in the uh northern district of illinois not that long ago where one of the federal district court judges had a disgruntled uh person who appeared in that court then went to her home and took the life of her mother and husband uh it was a horrible incident that occurred since then i've done my best to try to provide the resources not just for that court but for the courts across the country and what i can eliciting your response i think your position on capital hill makes you a little different than most but is it your impression it is mine that in speaking to district court judges they often lament the fact that they're waiting for the gsa to respond to uh security measures in in their courts in their court buildings

mmm

uh we have a uh proposal that i uh working on which would allow uh the courts themselves to administer the and work uh monitor these funds to see if they can do it more uh quickly and professionally and thoroughly. Have you heard responses from other courtrooms around the country of security concerns that are gone unmet?

I think

Yes, and I think that's part of their budget request. Judge Lefkoe is the judge I think you were talking about,

I am.

and I served with her when I was on the seventh circuit. Um, and I think precisely because of those sorts of things, yes, it is my understanding that the lower federal courts are also in great need of security funding and have been pushing for that in their courthouses and through GSA. as well