‘Threat Level is Really High’: Barrett Tells Congress How Threats Have Affected Her Family
“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.”
Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan are on the Hill today to push for a $230 million security budget.
Coney explained the threats against her to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government:
.@RepDaveJoyce: Would you talk about how the volume and nature of threats against the Court has changed over the past several years, particularly following the Dobbs decision and the 2022 incident at Justice Kavanaugh’s home? Is the threat level changed in 2026, and what do you believe is driving that trend?
Justice Amy Coney Barrett: The numbers, you know, as you’ve mentioned, it was up 25% last year on track for 38% this year and…those statistics sound abstract, but being on the receiving end of them is not.
So, I thought I would just share a little bit about how the threats have affected me and my family personally.
They have required me to — my children to think about and see things that children should not have to see or think about. One example is when threats to my life were particularly intense. A few years ago, around the time of the Dobbs leak, my security detail sent me home with a bulletproof vest and 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 I wanted to know what it was and why I had it. And 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.
It’s also been reported in the news that roughly six weeks ago, I was the victim of a swatting incident. At — at that point, 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. I was very, very grateful that I had Supreme Court Police outside my home because they were able to stop and meet with and explain to the County Police that it had been a false alarm, and so the police did not actually attempt to enter our home.
Many of us, me included, have received threatening anonymous deliveries designed to intimidate and harass us. They are often sent in the name of Judge Salas’s son, who I think, as you mentioned in the beginning, Mr. Chairman was deceased — is deceased because he was killed by a disgruntled lawyer who showed up a Judge Salas home intending to kill her. But her son, 20 years old at the time, opened the door and took the bullet instead. Her husband, standing behind, was seriously injured.
So I think the message on these deliveries being sent in his name is clear. As Justice Kagan said, federal judges across the country, throughout the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, continue to do their jobs without fear or favor. But the threat level is really high.
.@RepDaveJoyce: “Would you talk about how the volume and nature of threats against the Court has changed over the past several years, particularly following the Dobbs decision and the 2022 incident at Justice Kavanaugh’s home? Is the threat level changed in 2026, and what do you… pic.twitter.com/mowTBec5dZ
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 14, 2026
The threats escalated after someone leaked the majority opinion of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, written by Justice Samuel Alito, in May 2022.
The left freaked out because the decision overturned Roe v. Wade:
- Pro-Abortion Activists Hold Crazed Protests At Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts Homes
- Pro-Abortion Activists Target Justice Alito’s Home
- ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ Pro-Abortion Activists Protest Outside Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s House
- Gunman Angered Over Abortion Leaked Opinion Arrested Near Kavanaugh House, Says Wanted To Kill Him
It turned out that the leak was, in fact, the actual opinion. SCOTUS officially overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022.
The ruling resulted in more threats against the justices, pregnancy centers, and churches.
Kagan told the committee that the majority of 2025’s funding went to protecting their homes:
“In fiscal year 2027, the court is requesting an additional $14 million, a seven percent increase for salaries and expenses. Over the last five fiscal years, the Supreme Court’s funding needs have grown on average 15% per year. Aside from annual inflationary increases, recent growth in the Court’s budget has been almost entirely — entirely for security expenses. The majority of last year’s funding increase went to shifting the responsibility for residential security of the justices, from the Marshal Service to the Supreme Court Police. I first joined the court in 2010. Our security was very different at the time. The Supreme Court Police focused almost exclusively on protecting the building, and our IT department focused on supporting the latest Blackberry devices. I didn’t have a security team of my own, and I was accompanied by security personnel only when I participated in work-related public events. We began expanding our security program in earnest in 2017, initially at the behest of members of Congress. We engaged government and private industry experts to evaluate our needs on an ongoing basis. We started by expanding personal security beyond the Chief Justice, so that associate justices also received small security details, much too small, as it turned out.”
“As threat assessments called for larger details and as overtime costs correspondingly rose, we requested funding for more officers, vehicles and support staff as events at the Capitol and other federal courthouses revealed our buildings vulnerabilities, we also added new physical security systems. When personal threats increased following the Dobbs leak, we expanded our residential security and threat assessment activities. Similarly, as online attacks grew in number and sophistication, we requested additional cybersecurity resources.”
“Our strategy has been consistent across security functions, expand incrementally, but effectively to meet evolving security challenges. We are not 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, including 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 70 percent, a figure similar to the Court’s. For fiscal year 2027, Capitol Police requested a 16 percent increase. As neighbors, our two police departments will continue. I’m very sure, to work cooperatively together. Our respective departments growing needs are obvious given current conditions. The Capitol Police chief recently testified that threats against Congress are up 50 percent this year. The Supreme Court police expect a smaller but still very substantial 38 percent annual increase in threats this year, which follows a 25 percent increase last year.”
“For some of us, those threats have come very close, and all of us live with the knowledge that they may again materialize. But as the Chief Justice has said, 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.”
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan appearing before the House to push for more security funding….
“in fiscal year 2027, the court is requesting an additional $14 million, a seven percent increase for salaries and expenses. Over the last five fiscal years, the Supreme Court’s… pic.twitter.com/Go84jJFChk
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 14, 2026
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
There are a lot of nuts out there, Many are members of the DSA and D. It’s not surprising there are threats. What’s surprising is that there are not more attempts.
Well her cowardly rulings are just encouraging the threats to continue….
Really,….? what ruling are those? I bet you live under a bridge.
Or, a guarded and gated community.
I will try to explicate Dr. Ransom’s reasoning.
By “her”, I believe he means Justice Amy Coney Barrett (not Justice Elena Kagan).
By “cowardly rulings” I believe he means rulings like ACB’s ruling in the “birthright citizenship” case, implying her decision was motivated by an attempt to appease the left (which, of course, we can’t know for certain).
By “encouraging the threats to continue”, I believe he means that it is impossible to appease the left. They will continue to destroy their targets no matter what.
You are correct in that it is impossible to appease the left. However I suggest that “encouraging the threats to continue” means that since the threats were successful in getting her to change her vote this time (Assumption!) providing more threats will be successful the next time as well.
However it is all speculation as to whether Barrett was affected by threats until more evidence accrues,
Been in the medication room again, haven’t you?
.
They target you because they know you’re weak. And you out there whining about this in public makes the threats INCREASE, because you’ve shown it affects you.
Alito and Thomas are FAR more conservative and yet they’ve never said a word about this crap.
Just like Sandra Day O’Conner, Barrett has ensured that no conservative President will nominate any woman for decades to come.
They’re testifying before Congress to get their security budget raised. What do you expect them to say?
Thomas has made comments about threats. I can’t find any that Alito has made. Haven’t exactly researched this deeply.
The entire judicial system has been target by threats with the supreme court receiving the most because they are at the apex of the system. No surprises here.
When you view protected free speech as violence on one hand and you believe that political violence is often justified on the other, odds are overwhelming that you’re young, inexperienced, haven’t thought things through, and call people Fascist and Nazi all the time. In other words, you are a liberal and a Democrat.
Threats are not protected speech and should be rooted out and punished harshly. Where would we get all the prisons we would need?
“Threats are not protected speech and should be rooted out and punished harshly.”
I’ll go further. A swatting should be tried as an attempted murder, or, if not in name, then the punishments attached to it should be the same. Swatting is too dangerous (no thanks to the police, who are wrongly instructed that their mission is to go home safe at the ends of their shifts) to treat it as a kind of super-prank or nuisance.
What has always bothered me about swatting of public officials is their residences should be known to the police. Therefore, swatting attempts should be preventable just through a modest amount of filtering. Yes you might need to go over and knock on the door but no need to break in with rifles loaded and ready,
As a retired cop, I will assure you that if I must respond to a report of a gunshot inside a house, there is no way I would just “go over and knock on the door”. That is ridiculous.
Then what do you suggest?
1) Without looking I posit that 100% of these threats are coming from the left.
2) I sincerely believe that 99 44/100 of the people that b!tch & moan about Dobbs have never read the decision. It’s obvious by the way they construct their arguments. Dobbs did not ban abortion. Dobbs returned decision making to the states. If (god forbid) you want an abortion, go somewhere where it’s legal. There are plenty of evil blue states where murdering your child is legal.
3) What the left can never forgive is that by striking Roe down, SCOTUS neutered their most powerful hobbyhorse. Never again can a senator grill a nominee over how she’d vote on a case that would deny abortion to women.
4) I support additional funding for justices. I also support having them trained and armed to repel any attack. It’s not as though we’re seeing empty threats here.
They also don’t seem to grasp that SCOTUS ruling abortion is not a Constitutional issue means fedgov can’t ban it, either. That power is reserved to the States.
Huh? I don’t see any reason why the federal government can’t ban, or impose limits on, abortion.
That is not what Dobbs says. Nothing in Dobbs prevents a federal ban on abortion, should Congress choose to enact one.
So keep making terrible rulings Amy
Not helping and destroying America
Note that (at least reportedly) none of these credible threats came from people who were p’d-off about her recent nonsupport on the birthright citizenry issue.
This is why the high road can never work. It is a suicide pact.
Who gets the attention? Who gets the deference? The squeaky wheels. The Muslims who cut your head off. The Antifags who burn your building down. The people who march against Kings, then attend the funeral of one.
A Supreme Court Justice wants to keep her life uncomplicated? She can do it easily by deferring to the woke-o’s most likely to threaten her if she doesn’t. Heads they win, tails we lose.
There’s only two ways the center gets held here. One is if the justices man up and make rulings that return the USA into the sort of society the Heritage Americans used to enjoy. Another is if Heritage Americans begin to squeak… in the same DIRECT manner that the parasites do. That probably leads ultimately to an untenable society… but one can say the same about every government that has ever existed.
Hear Hear!
Barrett obviously knows where the danger comes from, and seems to have adjusted her rulings in an attempt to avoid it.
Of course this was the intended result of Biden’s unconstitutional refusal to take “due care to enforce the laws,” in particular our laws against demonstrating outside the houses of federal judges.
Of course she never should have been subject to extortion by criminal threats and actions, backed up by the tacit approval of the executive branch, but a Justice really needs to be able to react against such criminal action, not knuckle under to it.
Barrett’s knuckling under makes her unfit for office, but unfortunately it is too late to do anything about it, though an impressive Republican victory in the midterms might make her weakness irrelevant.
If what you say is true, then the proper/ethical course of action for a justice who finds it too hot in the kitchen is to leave the kitchen. Let Trump appoint someone made of sterner stuff.
The problem is no one knows whether or not it is true. It is all speculation based upon disagreement and anger at a judge’s ruling. Do you think if a judge was actually knuckling under the left’s threats of violence the left would care? No they wouldn’t and they would continue regardless, There is no appeasing them. Ever.
Agreed. If she’s that concerned then walk away. There’s plenty of other folks who’d serve. Not.to say the increased security budget isn’t justified but the whole ‘I didn’t know the nut jobs would come for me’ argument is bunk. More importantly where is the local and State LEO response? Why ain’t they out there pouncing on the slightest infraction? Why aren’t the State Legislatures seeking to make protests difficult in residential areas by placing more stringent conditions on these areas v traditional forums?
There is no evidence of that.
There is no such law. The law specifies demonstrations intended to influence the judge’s vote; not demonstrations protesting a vote that has already been cast. A law banning the latter would surely be unconstitutional.
Well, Miss wide-eyed, Opus Dei, fairy tale chick,
Your rulings allowing unfettered citizenship to low IQ, criminal welfare wards have raised the threat level to 99% of the population (white and dark). Screw you and your designer adopted Haitian children.
We can’t broadcast sob stories demanding $230 million dollar protection increases.
I hope your vest was sloppily sewn by an illegal.
Much love,
EHH
If folks don’t like judicial rulings then go protest at the Courthouse. Go organize and elect politicians who will appoint future Judges who’s judicial philosophy might more meet closely align with your policy preferences. Residential areas should be off limits for protest. Local LEO, DA and Judges gotta be willing to ruthlessly enforce all local ordinances and State Statutes to hold anyone who steps over any line accountable. To include issuing protective orders against individuals, groups and themselves who transport, supply, host or finance them. No official of any kind at any level (or anyone else) should be made to feel unsafe in their home. Neither should their family nor should their neighbors have to put with up with it.
That said ACB was nominated in mid September of ’20 and confirmed in late October of ’20. She was very well aware of the rising climate of political violence, mobs in the street, hesitant/weak local responses in many jurisdictions and off the charts political rhetoric that called for confrontation ‘get in their face, let them know they’re unwelcome’ and the realization of those calls with folks being harassed, surrounded, their movement impeded. That’s just the anti MAGA lunacy, add in the backdrop of the summer of love BLM riots ‘fiery but mostly peaceful’ and ACB along with everyone else with any sense had a very clear picture of what the future potentially held re public figures and safety. For her to suggest she wasn’t aware/didn’t know what she was potentially signed up for by accepting the nomination is bunk. She is certainly well within her prerogatives to resign if the burden of her office is too heavy.
A street, even a residential street, is a traditional public forum. It would be unconstitutional to ban parades there. And any ban that affects only protests and not demonstrations of support is absolutely unconstitutional.
There is a law banning any communication intended to influence a judge, juror, etc., in a pending case. As soon as the case is over that goes away.
Really? Can you supply a historical breakdown of the % of protests held in residential suburban neighborhoods v courthouse, City hall, govt buildings to back your claim? By decade would be great b/c we could then see the trendline to determine if protests in residential neighborhoods have a significant historical pattern or are a more recent phenomenon.Same.data for parades. Most jurisdictions require submission for a ‘parade’ permit with detailed plans re size, scope, route, attendance estimates and so on which local leaders use to estimate resources required. Time,.place, manner restrictions are constitutional.
We don’t have to ‘ban’ them. We can ruthlessly enforce existing ordinances. An easy one is noise, disturbing the peace. What’s ‘normal’ downtown isn’t normal in a suburban neighborhood. There’s a different baseline expectation of ‘peace’ to be disturbed. Sidewalks v street is another. No ‘standing’ not for a millisecond. No sound amplification devices.
The local/State LEO gotta be proactive. Any infraction, no matter how minor, they gotta move in and ‘briefly detain’ to ask for ID/write a citation or issue summons. When the goofy woke/lefty refuses lawful commands arrest them for obstruction. If their comrades attempt to interfere arrest them. If someone puts hands on a LEO arrest them for battery on LEO. If they fail to ID and they can’t get ‘booked’ hold them as John Doe. I’d argue to call ICE under the presumption they are illegal aliens wishing to conceal their unlawful pressing the USA. (Who knows, they might be and to dispel that all they gotta do is ID themselves) Get warrants on their phones and electronic communications. Trace their movements, track the finances find the organization, its leadership and coordination with other groups if any. Not to mention discovery of any outstanding warrants, unpaid child support, unpaid fines/tickets, unpaid taxes, unregistered vehicles or even failure to register for selective service. There’s plenty of pettifogging legal violations to find on most of these sorts of leftist wokiestas if LEO makes an effort.
Historical breakdowns are irrelevant. The term “traditional public forum” is a matter of law, not of statistics. And the law is that streets have the status of traditional public forums.
No jurisdiction has or even can have any restrictions on parades, so long as they stick to the sidewalk and keep moving. Permits are only required if the paraders wish to have the police block the roadway for them. Stationary protests don’t need a permit either, so long as the sidewalk is wide enough, and they occupy a small enough portion of it, that foot traffic is not obstructed.
Demonstrations and parades are bound by the normal noise restrictions that are in effect in that place and at that time, whatever those may be, so long as they’re enforced equally and not reserved for demonstrators, and certainly not reserved for demonstrators taking one side of a question.
It’s standard procedure, AFAIK in every jurisdiction, that if someone is arrested for any reason and can’t or won’t produce ID, they are held until they can be identified.
This is the USA and no one has to carry ID, but the decision not to must take into account the risk that one may be arrested for some reason completely out of one’s control, and the lack of ID will mean one will be held longer.
And of course assaulting a police officer is a serious offense that must result in arrest.
The municipality/County can absolutely require advance notice and coordination for any sort of organized protest/parade to plan whether LEO/ Fire/EMG SVC will be required. Whether the group/topic is likely to attract counter protests. Ensure adequate staffing and so on.
History is absolutely relevant b/c you claimed that protests/parades in suburban residential neighborhoods were ‘traditional forums’ equivalent to City Hall. Court House and govt buildings. You know dang well there’s no historical precedent for such. You keep ignoring long upheld time, place manner restrictions.
No-one is required to carry ID (other than aliens who must carry and present upon request of LEO) but everyone being lawfully detained or cited/issued summons is required to identify themselves to LEO; full name and address.
However, Chief, you’re missing the point. The demonstrations that did in fact take place outside justices’ residences after Dobbs carefully adhered to all these restrictions. The demonstrators walked up and down the sidewalk, not obstructing traffic, and not stopping. There were no valid laws that could have been used to stop them. They were not attempting to influence a future vote, and an ordinance that only banned protesters but not supporters was blatantly unconstitutional.
Milhouse,
You keep missing the point. Residential neighborhoods are NOT equivalent to Downtown. They have different ‘character’. They are zoned differently. All.sorts of things one can do downtown at the Courthouse or City hall are impermissible in a residential suburban neighborhood.
Who said anything about targeting protests exclusively? Not me. All such requirements as I suggest would be neutral applying equally to any group wanting to come into someone else’s quiet neighborhood and disrupt/disturb the peace. I don’t care what their intent was. Protests outside a home are ‘menacing’ in the same way some jurisdictions have laws against ‘brandishing’ (revealing) a firearm. If a crime for brandishing under such circumstances is constitutional then so is protest outside a residence.
If this is her stance and she is that afraid, she needs to resign and return to teaching or to private practice
We are in an era of violence as Gen Z has been taught that everything is violence except actual violence which apparently is “resistance and love”(see trademark resistance and in this home yard signs). Let’s hope Gen Y turns away from their insanity even if it is only out of rebelling against the status quo.
They already have enough security details.
Live with what you have.
Or how about this.
Start calling out the democrats for stirring up all the trouble low these many years.
“Nah, we have to look like we’re impartial”
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,” Schumer, who was then minority leader, said at the time. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
A frightened bleeding heart liberal…Heh.
Leave a Comment