{"id":178,"date":"2026-06-11T15:12:24","date_gmt":"2026-06-11T15:12:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=178"},"modified":"2026-06-11T15:12:24","modified_gmt":"2026-06-11T15:12:24","slug":"protecting-the-justices","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=178","title":{"rendered":"Protecting the justices"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Last month, Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the target of an attempted \u201cswatting\u201d incident \u2013 a call falsely reporting the sound of gunshots at her Virginia home. Although swatting incidents are intended to provoke a heavy police response, and therefore can often be dangerous, police audio indicated that Fairfax County police officers determined that the address had \u201c24-hour security coverage\u201d and were able to quickly confirm with the security detail at the house that it was a swatting call.<\/p>\n

Read more Opinions on the way<\/a><\/p>\n

The tight security provided to Barrett and her colleagues stands in sharp contrast to the protection provided to the justices in years past. As Jay Willis recounted after the death of Justice David Souter last year, Souter did not attend the 2005 ceremony marking the arrival of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist\u2019s casket at the Supreme Court because no one could get in touch with him; he did not have a cellphone or an answering machine at his New Hampshire home \u2013 and presumably also did not have any security detail at all that could relay the news to him.<\/p>\n

Security around the Supreme Court and the justices has increased markedly in recent years, particularly in the wake of the 2022 leak of the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/em>, which would overturn the constitutional right to an abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade<\/em>. The news of the leak led to protests at the court and at the residences of the courts\u2019 conservative justices, as well as an attempt to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh at his Maryland home.<\/p>\n

This beefed-up security presence has led to a significant expansion of both the Supreme Court\u2019s workforce and its budget. The Supreme Court\u2019s seeks more than $207 million in \u201cdiscretionary salary and expenses\u201d (that is, not related to salary and expenses for the justices, whose salaries the Constitution protects from reductions) for 821 full-time employees. That\u2019s an increase of more than $131 million, and 333 full-time employees, from .<\/p>\n

There is no way to know exactly how many of the 488 \u201cdiscretionary\u201d full-time employees in FY2016 were members of the Supreme Court Police. But the website for the Supreme Court Police Department currently indicates that the department has \u201callocated staffing for 233 officers\u201d (up from 189 just over three years ago and reportedly around 125 in 2018). And a review of the court\u2019s budget documents over the past decade reveals a slow uptick in funding and staffing immediately after the Dobbs<\/em> leak, followed by a dramatic increase recently as responsibility for protecting the justices and the court shifts from the U.S. Marshals Service, which had initially been tasked with security for the justices (in all likelihood because the Supreme Court Police then lacked the resources to provide round-the-clock security).\u00a0<\/p>\n

Year-by-year<\/strong><\/p>\n

Even before the Dobbs<\/em> leak, the court had begun to pay more attention to security issues. The court\u2019s included an increase of $2.2 million for \u201c27 new positions for security requirements.\u201d In testimony at a 2019 hearing held by the House Committee on Appropriations to discuss the court\u2019s budget, Justice Elena Kagan also indicated that Chief Justice John Roberts had hired security consultants and that the court planned to complete a review of its security before hiring more security staff.<\/p>\n

Read more Announcement of opinions for Thursday, June 11<\/a><\/p>\n

In 2020, the court again ,\u201d adding $2.9 million and two more full-time employees to its budget summary for FY2021.<\/p>\n

During FY2022, after the Dobbs<\/em> leak, the court received a to address increased security costs. The Marshals Service also received an additional $10.3 million to cover the costs of providing around-the-clock protection for the justices.<\/p>\n

Budget increases related to security continued in the years that followed.<\/p>\n