Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan sat before a House Appropriations subcommittee on Tuesday and made a request that would have seemed unthinkable a generation ago: raise the Supreme Court's annual funding from $44 million to $207 million, largely because the people who serve on the nation's highest bench now live under constant threat of violence.

The joint appearance, a conservative justice and a liberal one, side by side, underscored how far the security situation has deteriorated. Barrett described being sent home with a bulletproof vest after the Dobbs decision. Kagan cited U.S. Marshals Service data showing threats against federal judges climbed 25 percent last fiscal year and are projected to surge another 38 percent in the current one.

The justices were scheduled to repeat their appeal before the Senate at 2 p.m. the same day. Together, the two hearings amount to a rare, bipartisan plea from sitting justices who say their own police force is too small to keep them safe without borrowing resources from the U.S. Marshals.

Barrett describes bulletproof vests and a swatting attack on her home

Barrett's testimony was personal and specific. She told lawmakers she had to explain body armor to her own children after the Court's 2022 Dobbs ruling overturning Roe v. Wade drew a wave of threats against her.

"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."

She also disclosed a swatting incident at her home in late May. Someone doxed her address and then placed a false report claiming gunshots and raised voices were heard at the residence. Local police responded, only to be told by Supreme Court police already stationed there that the call was fabricated.

Swatting, the act of triggering an armed law-enforcement response to a victim's home through a hoax emergency call, has become a favored harassment tactic precisely because it is dangerous. Officers arrive expecting a lethal situation. The margin for a fatal mistake is razor-thin.

Barrett told the subcommittee that each justice currently receives a security detail of between four and eight officers, a number that increases when a justice faces a specific threat or makes a public appearance. She called the protection "unfortunately necessary for protection and daily activities."

Kagan puts the numbers on the table

Kagan's testimony leaned on the data. She cited U.S. Marshals Service statistics showing a 25 percent jump in threats against judges in the most recent fiscal year, with a further 38 percent increase expected in the current cycle. The Marshals Service publishes threat data through its judicial security division, and the trajectory Kagan described points in one direction.

"For some of us, those threats have come very close. And all of us live with the knowledge that they may again materialize."

That single sentence from a sitting justice should focus minds on Capitol Hill. The Court is not asking for marble renovations. It is asking for enough officers to protect nine people who issue decisions that affect 330 million Americans, and who have become targets because of it.

A nearly fivefold budget increase

The jump from $44 million to $207 million is enormous on paper. But the justices framed it around three concrete needs: more Supreme Court police officers, stronger cybersecurity, and upgraded building security at the Court itself.

The staffing argument carries particular weight. Right now, when the Court's own police force cannot cover a security need, the gap is filled by the U.S. Marshals Service, the same agency responsible for protecting every other federal judge in the country, transporting prisoners, and executing federal warrants. Every Marshal diverted to Supreme Court duty is a Marshal pulled from something else.

The justices said they want to grow the Court's dedicated police force so the Marshals can focus on their broader mission. That is not empire-building. It is basic institutional housekeeping in an era when the Court's docket is loaded with cases guaranteed to inflame one faction or another.

The political backdrop no one can ignore

The security crisis at the Court did not appear out of nowhere. It escalated sharply after Dobbs, when protests at justices' homes became a regular feature of political life. In June 2022, a man was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh's home carrying a gun, zip ties, and duct tape. He later told investigators he intended to kill the justice.

That incident predates the current testimony, but it established the baseline reality Barrett and Kagan described on Tuesday: the Court's members live under a level of threat that the institution's small police force was never designed to handle.

The Court has handed down a series of consequential rulings in recent terms. It delivered major wins for the Trump administration on asylum and Temporary Protected Status. It issued a 6-3 ruling on transgender athletes that House Democrats tried to wave away as a culture-war distraction. Each decision generates public attention, and, evidently, a rising tide of threats against the men and women who cast the votes.

None of that excuses the threats. A functioning republic depends on judges who can rule without fearing for their families. When justices have to brief their children on body armor, something has broken down, not at the Court, but in the political culture surrounding it.

What Congress should weigh

The $207 million request will face the usual appropriations gauntlet. Lawmakers will want a detailed breakdown, how many new officers, what cybersecurity upgrades, what building improvements, and the justices have not yet provided a public, itemized accounting. That is a fair question, and Congress should press for specifics before writing the check.

But the broader question is not really about line items. It is about whether the legislative branch takes seriously its obligation to fund the security of a co-equal branch of government. The Court cannot raise its own budget. It cannot hire its own army. It depends entirely on Congress to resource the people who stand between a justice's front door and the next anonymous caller claiming to hear gunshots.

The bipartisan nature of Tuesday's testimony matters. Barrett and Kagan agree on almost nothing jurisprudentially. They agree on this: the Court's security posture is inadequate, the threat environment is worsening, and Congress needs to act. When a conservative appointed by Trump and a liberal appointed by Obama deliver the same message, the usual partisan objections lose their force.

Carrie Severino, posting on X under the handle @JCNSeverino, shared a clip of Barrett's testimony and called it a "must watch," highlighting how escalating threats against the Court have reached into justices' family lives.

An institution under pressure

The Supreme Court has always drawn passionate reactions. That is the nature of a body that decides the hardest legal questions in American life. But passion is one thing. Swatting attacks, doxing, bulletproof vests, and a 38 percent projected increase in threats are something else entirely.

The justices did not ask Congress for sympathy on Tuesday. They asked for officers, technology, and the funding to keep the third branch of government operational without borrowing protection from an already-stretched Marshals Service.

Whether the subcommittee acts, and how quickly, will say a great deal about how seriously Congress takes the safety of the people it expects to make the hardest calls in American law.

If lawmakers cannot fund the security of nine justices, they should stop pretending they care about the rule of law at all.