Supreme Court Justices Testify Before Congress

According to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, “The threat level is really high” against Supreme Court Justices. Such a chilling warning prompted Justice Barrett and Justice Elena Kagan to testify before Congress today, requesting additional funding for security for the U.S. Supreme Court. Such an appearance before Congress is very rare; the last occurred in 2019 regarding a potential ethics code.

In her opening statement to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services, Kagan warned, “The Supreme Court Police expect a smaller but still substantial 38% annual increase in threats this year, which follows a 25% increase last year.”

Kagan also asserted that ongoing threats have come “very close” to different Justices, likely referencing the assassination attempt of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2022. After the attempt on Kavanaugh, the Justices – and their families – began receiving a 24-hour security detail.

Justice Barrett, who reported a “swatting” threat at her Virginia home this year, shared with Congress a heartbreaking story about how she had to explain what a bulletproof vest was to her son after she took one home following the Dobbs leak. We sometimes think of Supreme Court Justices as being legal scholars removed from the rest of us and forget that they’re human beings too.

My brother, ACLJ Executive Director Jordan Sekulow, elaborated on the need for heightened security around the Supreme Court:

We want to make sure Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court feel safe, that they can’t be intimidated by groups for either ideological reasons or just because they happen to be Supreme Court Justices. And we live in an age . . . where you can’t hide behind the building anymore. . . . As long as it’s smart and it’s things that have already shown in the past to work that it’s a good place to invest resources, not just because our office is right here not just for the Justices, but for all of the American people who visit Washington, D.C., in our nation’s capital, maybe they do it once or twice in their in their life, to feel like they are safe when they are taking tours and going to the most important places that our federal government is associated with. So it’s not just for the Justices, it’s for all the staff. . . . They’ve got a parking lot, and people are working 24/7. These are huge government buildings. So from everybody down to the janitor on up to the Justice themselves, you want them to be safe.

Such ongoing threats are why the Justices requested that Congress increase the security budget by 7% (a $14 million increase). Will Congress rush additional funding to protect the members of the high Court?

We also have an update on an important ACLJ fight to protect the free speech of pastors. For 70 years, the Johnson Amendment has hung over America’s pulpits, a pathway for the IRS to strip a church of its tax-exempt status the moment a pastor applies his faith to the candidates and elections shaping his community.

As we’ve written previously, a federal district court in Texas recently threw out the most significant challenge to that law in decades – not because the Johnson Amendment is constitutional, but on a jurisdictional technicality that let the court dodge the question entirely.

The case, National Religious Broadcasters v. Bessent, is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the ACLJ — joined by U.S. Representatives Jeff Crank (CO-5) and Mark Harris (NC-8), a former Baptist pastor — has just filed an amicus brief urging the court to correct that error.

This is not just a church fight. The unconstitutional-conditions doctrine protects any organization – religious or secular – from having a generally available government benefit leveraged to force it to surrender a constitutional right. The principle that chilled speech is itself an irreparable injury, not just speech that’s ultimately punished, protects every regulated American.

And if the government can shield any rule from constitutional review simply by routing it through the tax code, every agency in Washington now has a blueprint – one that reaches far beyond the pulpit. The Johnson Amendment has always rested on a bargain no American should be forced to make: your tax exemption or your voice.

The ACLJ will keep fighting until that bargain is off the table – for good. Join our fight to stop the government’s gag order on pastors. Sign our petition and donate during our Liberty Drive – gifts are doubled.

Today’s Sekulow broadcast included a full analysis of Justice Barrett and Justice Kagan’s plea to increase security funding for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Watch the full broadcast below: