Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett appeared before a House appropriations committee on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, to request additional funds for enhanced security measures. The hearing marks the first time justices have testified before Congress since 2019. The pair, representing the court’s liberal and conservative wings respectively, sought approval for a $228 million budget request for the upcoming fiscal year, a roughly 10% increase over the previous year. Much of the requested funding is earmarked for improving the security of the justices and their families, reflecting a sharp uptick in threats against the judiciary. The justices emphasized that the rise in threats has become a pressing concern. According to Kagan, the Supreme Court Police estimate a 38% increase in threats this year, following a 25% jump in the previous fiscal year. The U.S. Marshals Service reported 564 threats in the past fiscal year, up from 509 the year before. These threats include both direct physical dangers and indirect forms of intimidation, such as swatting calls and bomb threats. In May, Barrett’s home in Virginia was targeted by a swatting incident, while her sister faced a false bomb threat in Charleston, South Carolina. The Marshals Service has investigated 512 such incidents so far this fiscal year, highlighting the severity of the situation. The security concerns extend beyond the justices themselves. Federal judges nationwide have also experienced a surge in threats. In fiscal year 2025, there was a 57% increase in “security incidents of significant concern.” The rise in threats has coincided with heightened political polarization and intense scrutiny of the Supreme Court’s decisions. Notably, following the leak of a draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022, a would-be assassin was arrested near the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh with weapons and zip ties. The suspect, identified as Nicholas Roske (now known as Sophie Roske), was convicted of attempting to kill or kidnap a Supreme Court justice and received a sentence exceeding eight years in prison. Kagan and Barrett testified alongside the Supreme Court Police, who outlined plans to bolster security through several initiatives. The proposed $14.6 million allocation would expand the protection of justices by adding six agents per justice, along with 25 additional officers to secure the Supreme Court building. Another $2 million would fund an off-site residential security command post to improve emergency response times and coordination. Additionally, the court is seeking $2.3 million to hire cybersecurity professionals to defend against digital threats targeting the justices and their families. Beyond security, the court is also requesting $9.7 billion in general funding for the judiciary, a 4.5% increase over the previous year’s allocated amount. This broader budget request aims to support the operational needs of the entire federal judiciary, including infrastructure upgrades and personnel costs. However, the emphasis on security reflects the current climate of heightened vulnerability among judicial figures. Kagan noted that the court’s recent budget increases have been “almost entirely” dedicated to security expenses, as the Supreme Court Police now handle residential security for justices instead of the U.S. Marshals Service. Barrett shared a personal account of the security challenges, revealing that she had to explain the purpose of a bulletproof vest to her 12-year-old son following the leak of the Dobbs decision. She expressed the emotional toll of living under constant threat, stating, “For some of us, those threats have come very close, and all of us live with the knowledge that they may again materialize.” Chief Justice John Roberts has publicly condemned such threats, calling personally directed hostility toward judges “dangerous” and urging it to cease. As the justices prepare to testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee later that day, the debate over funding and security continues to unfold. Lawmakers must decide whether to approve the court’s requests, with a deadline of September 30 for passing the fiscal year 2027 spending bill. The outcome will determine how effectively the judiciary can safeguard its members and maintain public confidence in the institution.
9 reports
The New York Times (US)Independent🔒CenterFactual 95Objective 90yesterdayIn a rare move, Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett testified before Congress, asking for millions of dollars to enhance security measures at the Court. This marks the first time since 2019 that justices have appeared before lawmakers. The request comes amid increased concerns over safety and security threats facing the judiciary. The testimony highlights growing tensions around the protection of judicial institutions and their need for additional resources to ensure the safety of court personnel and proceedings.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual account of the justices' request for funding without overtly favoring any political side. It does not include biased language, one-sided sourcing, or editorializing that would indicate a clear ideological lean.
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): Matches the primary source document closely, accurately reporting the event, funding request, and threat statistics. Maintains neutrality in tone and presentation.
The New York Times (US)Independent🔒CenterFactual 85Objective 85yesterday Threats against the justices have been rising precipitously.The article highlights a growing concern regarding threats directed at U.S. Supreme Court justices, indicating a significant increase in such incidents. While no specific details or sources are provided in the limited text available, the focus is on the rising level of security concerns surrounding the judiciary. This issue has broader implications for the safety of judicial officials and the perception of justice in the United States.
Bias read (Center): The headline presents a factual observation about increasing threats against justices without overtly favoring any political side. There is no clear slant in the wording or framing, and the lack of detailed content prevents determination of a stronger lean.
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 85): Provides context on the security funding request and threats without adding unsupported claims. Maintains a neutral tone throughout.
ABC News (US)IndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 85yesterdaySupreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett are scheduled to testify before a House appropriations panel in a rare congressional appearance. The hearing follows a significant increase in threats against federal judges, including a fake swatting call targeting Barrett's home and previous incidents involving other justices. The justices are seeking $228 million in security funding for the upcoming fiscal year, which includes expanded personal protection, additional security personnel, and new infrastructure to enhance safety. This marks the first time justices have appeared before Congress since 2019, highlighting growing concerns over judicial security amidst rising hostility.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about the Supreme Court's request for increased security funding and the context of rising threats against judges. It does not take a clear ideological stance on the issue of judicial security or the broader implications of the funding request. While the tone
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 85): Reports facts consistently with the primary source, including the funding request and threat examples. Slightly less detailed on specific figures compared to the primary source.
Bloomberg NewsIndependent🔒CenterFactual 85Objective 80yesterdayThe article reports that Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan are set to testify before Congress in back-to-back hearings. This marks a rare occurrence where sitting justices appear before lawmakers, highlighting potential scrutiny of their judicial decisions or conduct. The event underscores ongoing interest in the judiciary’s role and transparency.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the event as a factual update without overtly favoring any political perspective. It focuses on the procedural aspect of the testimony rather than taking a stance on the implications or outcomes, maintaining a balanced tone.
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 80): Factually accurate, reporting on the testifying event and security funding request. Objectivity slightly lower due to mention of Barrett being a 'representative of the court’s conservative majority' and Kagan as 'liberal wing,' which adds political framing.
CBS News (US)IndependentCenterFactual 80Objective 85yesterdayIn testimony before a House subcommittee, Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett requested increased funding for enhanced security measures due to rising threats against the judiciary. They highlighted that the Supreme Court’s budget request for FY2027 includes over $228 million, with more than $20 million allocated specifically for expanded protective services. This would add up to six additional agents per justice and cover travel-related security needs. Kagan emphasized that threats have become increasingly severe, noting that the Supreme Court Police anticipates a 38% rise in threats for 2026. Data from the U.S. Marshals Service indicates a 57% increase in 'security incidents of significant concern' among federal judges in FY2025, with 370 threats reported in the current fiscal year alone. The justices stressed the importance of continuing judicial duties without fear, despite these heightened risks.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the testimonies of two Supreme Court Justices requesting increased security funding, citing specific data and figures from official sources. It does not exhibit overtly biased language, one-sided sourcing, or editorializing. Instead, it provides a balanced account of the issue,
Why these scores (Factual 80 · Objective 85): Includes quotes from Kagan that are not present in the primary source, potentially introducing new information. Otherwise, factually aligned and presented neutrally.
NewsweekIndependentCenterFactual 80Objective 85yesterdayThe U.S. Supreme Court is requesting increased funding from Congress, primarily for enhanced security measures for justices and their families. Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan are scheduled to testify before Congress regarding the court's $228 million budget request for the upcoming fiscal year, which represents a 10% increase compared to the prior year. The funds would be allocated toward expanding the Supreme Court Police's protective services, hiring additional security personnel, and improving infrastructure such as visitor screening facilities and cybersecurity defenses. The broader judiciary is seeking a total of $9.7 billion for fiscal year 2027, reflecting a 4.5% increase from the previous year's allocation.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the Supreme Court's funding requests in a neutral manner, focusing on the specific figures and purposes outlined in the budget documents. There is no overtly biased language, and both the court's request and the context of rising threats are mentioned without taking a stance on褒
Why these scores (Factual 80 · Objective 85): Accurately reports on the security funding request and mentions the increase in threats. Objectivity is higher as it avoids direct political labeling, though it does reference past rulings in context.
The New York Times (US)Independent🔒CenterFactual 70Objective 80yesterday Justice Kagan Tells House Panel That ‘Threats Have Come Very Close’Justice Elena Kagan addressed a House panel, stating that the Supreme Court Police have reported a 38 percent increase in threats against the court this year. She emphasized that these threats have come very close to the justices, highlighting concerns over safety and security within the judiciary. Kagan’s comments were part of her prepared remarks during the hearing, where she discussed the rising tensions and challenges faced by the Supreme Court. The increased threat level has raised alarms among legal experts and lawmakers regarding the potential impact on judicial independence and public trust in the institution.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual statement from Justice Kagan regarding the increase in threats to the Supreme Court. It does not exhibit overtly biased language, one-sided sourcing, or omission of context. The content remains neutral in tone, focusing on the reported statistic and Kagan's remarks.
Why these scores (Factual 70 · Objective 80): Lacks specific details from the primary source, such as exact threat numbers or funding amounts. Focuses more on general concerns rather than concrete data.
RealClearPoliticsIndependentConservative10 hr. agoThe article discusses Justice Amy Coney Barrett's experience explaining bulletproof vests to her children, highlighting the heightened security measures at the Supreme Court. It connects this to the Court's request for $14.6 million in security funding, suggesting that these measures reflect broader concerns about threats against the judiciary. The piece frames the situation as part of a larger narrative involving judicial safety and potential external pressures on the Court.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the increased security measures at the Supreme Court as a reflection of external threats, which aligns with conservative narratives about judicial independence and perceived liberal influence. The emphasis on safety and the implication of a 'war on SCOTUS' suggests a right-leaning
AxiosIndependentCenteryesterdaySupreme Court Justice Elena Kagan testified before the House Appropriations Committee warning that threats against Supreme Court justices are expected to rise by nearly 40% this year, following a 25% increase last year. She highlighted that as the courts become more involved in contentious policy decisions, frustration from opposing sides has led to increased threats, risking the court's independence. Kagan also noted a 50% increase in threats against Congress this year, citing testimony from Capitol Police chiefs. Justice Amy Coney Barrett shared a personal account of heightened security measures, including sending her children home with bulletproof vests after the leak of the Dobbs decision. The Supreme Court has requested $18.9 million in funding to enhance security, including expanding personal protection, building an off-site security command post, and hiring cybersecurity experts. The request includes adding six protection agents per justice, 25 security officers, and support staff, along with upgrading physical and cybersecurity infrastructure.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about rising threats against the Supreme Court and related security concerns without overtly endorsing any particular political ideology. It includes quotes from both Justices Kagan and Barrett, providing balanced perspectives on the issue. While the topic is
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
United States
