Supreme Court justices testified on Capitol Hill about rising threats, the Court is requesting a 10 percent boost to its security budget and six extra agents per justice, and the debate over who is responsible for intimidation and violence has sharpened into a partisan fight over consequences and courage.
Yesterday, Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan went to Capitol Hill to testify before Congress about threats and security needs. The Court is seeking a 10 percent increase in its security budget amid what it calls rising threats, and each justice is asking for six additional security agents. Justice Barrett was the victim of a swatting attempt two months ago, underscoring how personal and immediate these dangers have become.
Justice Barrett described an incident involving a bulletproof vest and how her children reacted, and that moment laid bare the domestic toll these threats take on everyday family life. “Personally, they have required me to, or my children, to think about and see things that children should not have to see or think about,” Justice Barrett said. “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. I carried it into my house, put it into my bedroom, dropped it down on the table … 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, and I didn’t know how to respond.”
As a mother with a nearly teenage son, I offered a different response I believe she should have used to name the problem plainly. “There are bad people in this country, they’re Leftists who are mad that the Supreme Court is going to correctly rule on an issue they support: abortion. But rather than win the argument in the courts or with dialogue, they believe threatening my life is the correct course of action.”
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/2077040439748661457
What Barrett did not do was explicitly identify the origin of the threats, and that silence matters. The Dobbs leak was widely interpreted by many conservative observers as an act intended to intimidate at least one justice, and naming motive and actors matters when the security of the judiciary is at stake. When the attackers are political actors who openly celebrate intimidation, failing to call them out only lets the behavior continue unchecked.
There are numerous examples conservatives point to as proof of a pattern: BLM and Antifa demonstrations that turned into property destruction, physical attacks on journalists, threats against elected officials, and calls for upheaval rather than debate. Multiple high-profile attempts at political violence and rhetoric praising revolution have made clear there is an element within the left-wing movement that tolerates, if not endorses, escalation.
When violent activists are finally prosecuted, the response from some on the left can read like grievance rather than contrition. Recently, a group tied to an operation at a Texas ICE facility—an incident that included a shooting of a law enforcement officer—received collective sentences totaling 450+ years, and many left-leaning voices reacted angrily to the punishment. That reaction feeds the perception that some expect immunity from serious consequences.
High-profile heckling of the Court came from leaders who should know better, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer publicly warned justices after the Dobbs leak that they could face retribution for returning the abortion issue to the states. Republicans, meanwhile, deserve criticism for not using legal tools more aggressively—RICO and other federal mechanisms could be used to dismantle organized campaigns of intimidation, and the failure to pursue accountability looks like weakness.
The partisan double standard stings: the Biden administration has not hesitated to use laws like the FACE Act against pro-lifers, yet equivalent ferocity in pursuing threats against the Court has been absent. This discrepancy fuels the argument that political alignment, not principle, often dictates whose actions get prosecuted and whose do not. That inconsistency undermines public trust in equal enforcement of the law.
There is also a debate inside conservative circles about whether intimidation has affected the Court’s decisions and individual justices’ behavior. “The Dobbs leak triggered violent threats and protests aimed directly at Supreme Court justices. If the threat of violence or intimidation can move a justice’s votes on foundational issues, we have a constitutional crisis on our hands. Judicial independence is not optional — it is the foundation of the rule of law. When justices appear to bend under pressure, public trust collapses and the entire system is at risk,” Smith wrote. “This cannot be allowed to stand. Threats against the Court must be met with zero tolerance, full investigations, and real consequences — no matter who makes them. Anything less is an attack on self-government itself.”
I’m not demanding Justice Barrett resign; doing so hands the victory to those who seek to intimidate the judiciary. What I am demanding is courage: she should call out the faction that targets justices and insist on consequences through the proper legal channels. Naming who is responsible and pushing for prosecutions, investigations, and accountability is the way to defend the Court’s independence.
Justice Barrett, like any parent, can be afraid, and acknowledging fear is human. But we cannot confuse fear with surrender. The court and the country need leaders willing to stand up, point to the actors who threaten our institutions, and insist the rule of law apply to everyone equally. That starts with Justice Barrett naming names and demanding consequences.
