Skip to main content

Justices pitch lawmakers on enhanced security in rare Hill appearance

Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan (L) and Amy Coney Barrett testify to the House Appropriations Committee on Capitol Hill July 14, 2026, in Washington, DC. The justices appeared before the committee’s budget hearing for the Supreme Court requesting additional funding for security. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

(WASHINGTON) — U.S. Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett made a rare appearance before Congress on Tuesday to pitch lawmakers on new security enhancements for the Supreme Court even as they fielded criticism about their transparency and ethics practices.

The hearing marked the first time since 2019 that members of the Supreme Court have testified on Capitol Hill and comes as the justices seek support for a larger budget — $228 million, up 10% from last year — to accommodate more security.

The funding increase would go almost entirely toward beefing up personal protection for the justices, though the court has also asked for funding to support more building officers, an off-site security office and new cybersecurity hires.

Lawmakers seemed largely sympathetic to the justices on Tuesday, who cited a heightened threat environment — and the personal toll it takes on their daily lives — in recent years. The Supreme Court police report that threats against the justices increased by 38% last year and 25% the prior year.

In the hearing’s most personal moment, Justice Barrett shared that she brought a bulletproof vest home around the time of the court’s leaked opinion overturning Roe v. Wade — a precaution she struggled to explain to her 12-year-old son. 

“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,” Barrett said, calling the threat environment “really high.”

Barrett also confirmed news reports that she was the target of a swatting incident six weeks ago, saying her teenage son opened the door to swarms of law enforcement. Swatting involves hoax calls about bogus shootings and other emergencies.

Other justices have also faced security concerns in recent years, most notably when a man went to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house in 2022 looking to assassinate him in the weeks after the Dobbs opinion was leaked.

Each member currently has between four and eight agents assigned to them, the justices testified on Tuesday — a number they said fluctuates based on the justices’ schedule and the scrutiny they’re under. 

The Supreme Court’s requested 2027 budget would significantly expand that security force. The justices are seeking $14.6 million to fund six additional agents per justice — a total of 54 new officers — and to hire 25 officers dedicated to the Supreme Court building.

The justices argued on Tuesday that the current staff allocation is insufficient. Barrett said it risks burn out and exhaustion, noting the same detail often drops her off at 11 p.m. and must then arrive in the morning again.

The court has also asked for $6.5 million to fund an “exterior visitor screening facility design.” The money would go toward blueprints and early planning for an off-campus security process for those entering the court.

Kagan briefly addressed the proposal, saying the justices were concerned about visitors entering the building before they had been screened. Currently, members of the public go through magnetometers and x-ray machines inside the lobby area beneath the grand staircase. 

The justices were also asked about more unconventional threats, including from drones and cyber warfare.

Barrett acknowledged that “drone mitigation measures are certainly on security’s radar.” She also said that cybersecurity attacks were increasing “by magnitudes year after year.” The Supreme Court has asked for $2.3 million to fund cybersecurity-related hires — part of a yearslong plan to protect its data and bolster technology infrastructure.

Though lawmakers largely steered clear of hot-button policy issues on Tuesday, Democrats pressed the justices on transparency-related concerns that they say have eroded trust in the court. 

Lawmakers appeared most frustrated with the court’s prolific use of the so-called “shadow docket” — also known as the “emergency docket” — to reach decisions on emergency requests more quickly and without a full briefing or oral argument.

Notably, Kagan — who has long been publicly critical of this practice — defended the practice on Tuesday. She said it was no longer accurate to refer to it as “shadow” because the court was more frequently providing explanations alongside their snap decisions on the docket.

“We have done, I think, a better job in the recent past of where appropriate — and it’s not always appropriate — but where appropriate, explaining ourselves at least to a moderate degree,” Kagan said.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, pressed the justices in particular on their ethical practices after recent ethics scandals, such as Justice Clarence Thomas’ unreported financial ties to and luxury travel with a billionaire GOP donor and Justice Samuel Alito’s reported luxury vacation he took with a wealthy hedge fund manager who later had business before the Supreme Court.

DeLauro called on the Supreme Court to adopt a gift ban, citing a bill reintroduced by her colleague Rep. Jamie Raskin on Tuesday that would prevent the justices from accepting gifts greater than $50.

DeLauro also pressed the justices on how they were enforcing their code of conduct, adopted in 2023. Though Barrett hesitated to endorse an independent enforcement mechanism, Kagan said she was supportive. 

“I think that we would be better off with an enforcement mechanism,” Kagan said. “I think that my colleagues are taking this code incredibly seriously, all making every effort — and I think successful efforts — to live by it. But if nothing else, for public confidence.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

‘Decades in Sports’: How the 1980s Miami Hurricanes became one of the most hated teams in sports history

(CNN) — Editor’s note: Watch CNN Original Series “Decades in Sports” on the CNN app. Across six episodes, the series explores the defining moments, athletes and cultural shifts that shaped sports over the past six decades, from the television revolution and Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, right up to the impact of social media on today’s biggest stars.There have been plenty of dominant teams in the 150-plus-year history of college football, but few have left a bigger mark on the sport than the Miami Hurricanes did during the 1980s.The Canes were a team that went against the grain, trash-talking in a way that constantly got under their opponents’ skin, celebrating wildly after big plays and dancing in the end zone after touchdowns with a swagger that stood out as much as their bright orange jerseys.“That made them such a phenomenon,” says John U. Bacon, author of Fourth and Long: The Fight for the Soul of College Football, as the Hurricanes’ bold, brash and arrogant style transformed college football into something closer to theater.As Bacon also highlights in the series, “The Hurricanes were the bad boys of college football.” However, their impact was felt far beyond the gridiron, as the 1986 squad was even labeled the most hated team of all time by Sports Illustrated.For context, the 25-team list devised by Sports Illustrated featured some of the most polarizing teams in US sports history, such as the 1988-89 Detroit Pistons (widely known as the “Bad Boys”), the 2010-11 Miami Heat (universally recognized as the team that kickstarted the “superteam” era in the NBA) and the 2007 New England Patriots (who became the ultimate villains of the NFL after the infamous “Spygate” scandal.But it was this college football program which topped them all. As Bacon says, “They were more popular in Miami than the Dolphins, and the Dolphins had (1984 NFL MVP) Dan Marino.”Why Miami was so hatedThe Canes’ boisterous antics were not just empty calories – they backed it up when they stepped onto the field.Like many polarizing sports teams throughout history, Miami garnered attention because it won. Winning made the Hurricanes easy to root against, but also impossible to ignore.However, what truly set them apart is how they embraced the role of the villain.Before facing defending national champion and top-ranked Oklahoma in September 1986 in front of over 70,000 fans at the Orange Bowl, the Hurricanes famously defied protocol and refused to shake hands with the Sooners, sparking a heated exchange between the top two teams right in front of the TV cameras.Game officials intervened and even threatened to throw a penalty flag if Miami snubbed the pre-game handshake. But the Hurricanes didn’t budge and backed up their pre-game antics by beating the Sooners 28-16.Their “style ruffled a lot of feathers,” says Dr. Todd Boyd, Professor of Cinema and Music Studies at USC. But the more people disliked Miami, the more the team seemed to embrace it.Later that same season, they took it a step further.When landing in Tempe, Arizona, for the 1987 Fiesta Bowl against Penn State, which served as the national championship game, the Hurricanes famously stepped off their plane wearing full camouflage military fatigues in an attempt to intimidate the Nittany Lions.It didn’t work on that occasion, as Miami fell 14-10 in the title game. But the following year, the “Bad Boy” Hurricanes came out on top, going unbeaten and taking down the Oklahoma Sooners – again – 20-14 to win the national championship.As Van Lathan – journalist and podcaster at The Ringer – says in the series, “The 80s were an anti-hero decade.”Lathan went on to highlight that, during that time, “We are re-examining what is OK in the name of coming out on top. This is a post-Watergate America … and whatever it takes, we are going to win.”No one embodied that shift more than this group from South Florida: It was win by any means necessary.As sports journalist and podcaster Bomani Jones highlights: “It became the dominant culture of the sport.”However, none of this would have been possible without a coach who not only allowed his players the space to go about their business in such a controversial manner, but one who encouraged the brash and boisterous behavior they took to stadiums across the country: Jimmy Johnson.The Jimmy Johnson effectWhen Johnson arrived in South Florida in 1984, he had pretty big shoes to fill.Howard Schnellenberger – who helped build Miami’s college football program into one of the elite programs over five seasons – had just departed after leading the Hurricanes to their first national championship, upsetting the unbeaten, top-ranked Nebraska Cornhuskers 31-30 at the Orange Bowl.However, despite Schnellenberger being the original architect of Miami’s success, it was under Johnson that the Hurricanes truly peaked.After going 18-7 in his first two seasons, Miami went 34-2 in his final three, winning the national championship in 1987 and narrowly losing one 14-10 to Penn State in 1986 after Johnson led the Hurricanes to the first undefeated regular season in program history.But it was the culture Johnson cultivated in South Florida that made his tenure so memorable.There was a shift happening in sports in the 1980s, with players becoming more brash and expressive. It is something that is celebrated today but was highly frowned upon at the time.Johnson’s genius was not only in recognizing that shift, but also in allowing his players to be their authentic selves out on the field, because as Jones highlights in the series: “The Florida boys are different, (and) they have a really good time when they play their football.“Normally, when you get a lot of players who like to dance when they score a touchdown and like to talk a bunch of sh*t when they play, you have a coach who is trying to tamp that down and get them to behave a little bit more respectably…“Jimmy Johnson loved it! He loved it as much as they did. He’s like, ‘As long as we win, you can do whatever you want.’”On its face, it sounds simple, but it was highly effective and it was an era that redefined what a college football powerhouse could look like. They were rough around the edges, bold, brash and arrogant – but that’s what made them who they were.Better to be remembered for something than not remembered at all. And no one will forget the 1980s Miami Hurricanes, the “Bad Boys of college football.”The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story