Justice Barrett tells Congress threat level against federal judges 'is really high,' seeks nearly 10% budget increase

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett told a House appropriations panel this week that threats against the federal judiciary have reached alarming levels, sharing personal accounts of a swatting attack on her home, a bulletproof vest delivered by her security detail, and anonymous packages meant to intimidate her family. The testimony came as the court seeks $228.4 million for fiscal year 2027, a nearly 10% jump over last year's funding, driven largely by security costs.

Barrett and Justice Elena Kagan appeared before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government on Capitol Hill, the first time sitting justices have testified to Congress about the court's budget since 2019. They were also scheduled to appear before the corresponding Senate subcommittee that afternoon.

The numbers alone tell a grim story. U.S. Marshals Service data show 512 investigations into threats against federal judges since the start of 2026. For all of 2025, the total was 807. At the current pace, 2026 is on track to match or exceed last year's figure, and the year is barely past the halfway mark.

A bulletproof vest and a 12-year-old boy

Barrett, nominated by President Donald Trump during his first term, did not speak in abstractions. She walked lawmakers through what the threat environment looks like inside her own household.

In the spring of 2022, after a draft Supreme Court opinion leaked to a media outlet, more than a month before the court reversed the 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion, Barrett's security detail sent her home with a bulletproof vest. What happened next, she told the subcommittee, was a scene no parent expects.

As CNBC reported, Barrett described the moment in detail:

"I carried it into my house, put it into my bedroom, dropped it down on a table, turned around, and my 12-year-old son was standing in the doorway of my bedroom, and he wanted to know what it was and why I had it."

She continued:

"I didn't know how to respond because maybe I lack imagination, but I didn't expect that performing this service was going to put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was and why I had to wear one."

That spring 2022 period followed the unprecedented leak of a draft opinion, an event that Chief Justice Roberts has warned carries real consequences for the institution and the safety of individual justices. Barrett's testimony put flesh on that warning.

Swatted at home

Barrett also described a recent swatting attack, the malicious practice of filing a false emergency report to trigger a heavy police response at someone's home. Her teenage son opened the front door to go out with friends and found the street filled with police cars.

"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, who had responded to a false report of gunshots and raised voices in my home."

Barrett said she was "very, very grateful" that Supreme Court Police were stationed outside her residence. They intercepted the responding county officers and explained the report was a hoax, preventing police from forcing entry into the home.

She also noted that "any of us, me included, have received threatening anonymous deliveries designed to intimidate and harass us." She did not describe the contents or frequency of those deliveries.

Barrett framed the threat data in personal terms: "Those statistics sound abstract, but being on the receiving end of them is not." She added that the security environment has forced her children "to think about and see things that children should not have to see or think about."

A budget built around security

The court's FY2027 budget request of $228.4 million represents a jump of roughly $20.6 million over the FY2026 appropriation of $207.8 million. The increase, Barrett and Kagan told lawmakers, reflects higher spending on security-related measures, though the specific line items driving the increase were not detailed in the hearing.

The Washington Examiner reported that $14.6 million of the request is reserved for protection and security. Justice Kagan had previously indicated to House Appropriations ranking member Rosa DeLauro that justices were willing to testify. House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole said he was open to the appearance but wanted to avoid the hearing becoming "into some sort of circus", a reference to concerns that lawmakers might steer questions toward high-profile cases involving the Trump administration.

The Supreme Court has been at the center of major constitutional disputes in recent terms, including rulings on presidential power, citizenship, and the limits of executive authority. That political intensity has made individual justices targets, and made the budget conversation about more than line items.

Why the justices showed up

The last time sitting justices testified before this subcommittee was 2019, when Kagan and Justice Samuel Alito appeared. The seven-year gap is itself a marker of how unusual the current moment is. Justices rarely submit themselves to congressional questioning, and the decision to do so now signals that the court's leadership views the security situation as serious enough to justify the institutional risk of a public hearing.

Barrett's willingness to share personal anecdotes, the bulletproof vest, the swatting, the anonymous packages, was plainly strategic. Abstract budget numbers don't move appropriators. A mother describing her son staring at body armor does.

The broader context matters. Threats against the judiciary have escalated alongside an era of intensely polarized rulings. The court has handed the Trump administration major victories on immigration and taken up cases that touch the most contested questions in American law. Every consequential decision generates political heat, and some of that heat has turned into direct threats against the men and women who issue the rulings.

Barrett herself has drawn attention for decisions that cross ideological lines, including siding with liberal justices in a notable death penalty case. That independence may earn respect in legal circles, but it also means she draws fire from multiple directions.

What remains unanswered

Several questions linger after the testimony. Barrett described the swatting incident as "recent" but gave no specific date. The nature of the "threatening anonymous deliveries" she referenced, what they contained, how often they arrive, whether law enforcement has identified the senders, remains undisclosed.

The Marshals Service data show 512 threat investigations in roughly the first half of 2026, against 807 for all of 2025. Whether that pace reflects a genuine acceleration or a change in how threats are counted and investigated is not addressed in the testimony or the budget documents.

And the fundamental question, whether $228.4 million is enough, too much, or properly targeted, will be answered not by justices but by the appropriators who heard them out.

What Barrett made clear is that the cost of protecting the judiciary is not hypothetical. It shows up at the bedroom door, in a street full of squad cars, and in packages no one asked for. Congress can debate the budget. The threats aren't waiting for a vote.