Supreme Court Justices Kagan, Barrett testify in House hearing

[0:01] I'm going to kind of angle you in a sec. [0:45] Can I have you just slide up a little just so we can kind of pull more people in? [0:55] Yeah. [0:56] Yeah. [0:57] A little bit, Omar? [1:03] I just want to... [1:05] All right. [1:06] I'll let you guys figure out, yeah, who goes well. [1:16] Yeah. [1:18] I'm going to move right where we told you to. [1:21] I'm right where you told me to. [1:24] I can't believe that was so easy. [1:26] Am I some questions? [1:28] I'm going to go see it. [1:31] No, I'm going to go see it. [1:33] I can't see it. [1:35] I can't see it. [1:37] There's someone I need. [1:41] You're already here. [1:44] You're just going to be ahead. [1:47] You're just going to be ahead. [1:48] I didn't know you were going to put it in. [1:51] I know you were thinking. [1:53] Oh, I mean, I don't know. [1:55] I don't know. [1:56] I'm going to do it like that. [1:58] No, no, no. [1:59] I'm just saying. [2:03] I didn't know you were supposed to. [2:04] I know you were supposed to. [2:07] I don't want to post it. [2:07] I feel like that. [2:09] I mean, we're going to do that. [2:10] That was really, that was great. [2:13] That was great. [2:18] That was so neat. [2:20] Hey, you guys want to go live? [2:22] Yeah, absolutely. [2:23] Thank you. [2:24] Thank you. [2:47] I don't really want to check. [2:56] I'm good. [2:57] Oh, my God. [2:58] I would like to help everyone. [3:00] Thank you guys, Tim. [3:01] Great. [3:02] Look at that. [3:04] Keep working. [3:05] Keep working. [3:07] I don't know. [3:08] We're good. [3:17] And the award-winning work. [3:42] Good morning. [51:54] I think there was a sustained effort up here to hold back on all rise as you entered. [52:00] So the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government will come to order. [52:05] The hearing is a budget hearing of the Supreme Court of the United States. [52:09] Members will have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and [52:14] insert extraneous material into the record. [52:16] Before we begin the hearing, I'd like to urge the members to stay focused on the topic [52:19] of today's hearing, United States Supreme Court budget requests the fiscal year 2027. [52:24] This is not intended to be an opportunity to revisit the court's opinions, talk about financial [52:29] disclosures of the justices, or any other issues not related to the court's budget request. [52:33] I now recognize myself for an opening statement. [52:37] I would like to welcome both Justice Kagan and Justice Coney Barrett and thank them for [52:41] being here today. [52:42] This is as close as some of us will ever get in appearing before the Supreme Court. [52:46] The last time a Supreme Court justice appeared before the committee was in 2019, and we're [52:51] very excited to have you here today with us. [52:53] A great deal has changed over the last seven years. [52:56] New technologies have become accessible for bad actors. [52:59] The threat environment facing our federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, has evolved [53:04] substantially. [53:05] Chief Justice Roberts himself wrote in his 2024 year-end report that he was troubled by [53:10] the U.S. Marshals Service data showing that hostile threats and communications toward judges [53:15] had more than tripled over the preceding decade, and the marshals had investigated more than 1,000 [53:20] serious threats against federal justices in just the last five years. [53:23] This committee does not take these facts lightly. [53:26] We are reminded of Daniel Anderle, the son of Federal Judge Esther Anderle, who was killed [53:32] by a disgruntled attorney at the door of his family home. [53:35] And the threat to Justice Kavanaugh in 2022 stopped in large part thanks to the presence [53:39] of two deputy U.S. Marshals protecting the residents and local law enforcement support. [53:44] Whatever one's view of this specific Supreme Court ruling, judicial officers, up to and [53:49] including the justice of the Supreme Court, must be able to do their jobs without fear for [53:53] their safety or their family's safety. [53:55] In addition to security, the court needs to be able to operate effectively and efficiently. [54:00] It should have the most up-to-date information technology, infrastructure, and an electronic [54:05] filing system that meets the needs of all of its users. [54:09] It should have enough staff to research, support our justices, and the American people. [54:13] This is why your appearance before us today is so important. [54:16] We need to understand whether current funding and staffing levels for the court and its operations, [54:22] including security, are keeping pace with the needs and the reality of the modern-day threat [54:27] environment. [54:28] For the fiscal year 2027, the court is requesting 225 million, a 53.5% increase above its FY2026 [54:37] enacted level. [54:38] I look forward to discussing this request with you both. [54:42] I now recognize my ranking number for any opening statement he may have. [54:46] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [54:48] I want to welcome Justin Kagan and Justin Comey-Barrett to the courtroom, I suppose, in one sense, [54:58] but to the hearing room in a very significant other sense. [55:02] I also want to welcome Judge Dowell, who has been so good to work with over the course of [55:11] the last few years with respect to making sure that you had a sufficient budget, not only [55:17] to carry out your formal duties, but also to protect the justices. [55:21] Unfortunately, we put the cart before the horse. [55:24] We marked up the fiscal year 27 bill in subcommittee and then marked it up in full committee before [55:31] we had hearings to inform us on the facts which would make the budget decisions more credible. [55:37] Now we are having two hearings today from witnesses about their funding request in that bill that we passed. [55:43] We should have started with those hearings. [55:45] We also should be hearing from Treasury and Doge, too. [55:48] We did hear from OMB, at which time Director Vogt informed us that he intended to have no oversight of the damage done by Doge. [55:56] Mr. Chairman, as you know, I think we must have such hearings ourselves. [56:01] As has been widely noted, this is the first time the Supreme Court justices are testifying before House Committee since 2019. [56:10] We appreciate this opportunity. [56:12] Such hearings used to be the norm. [56:14] From 1960 to 2022, there were 93 appearances by at least one sitting Supreme Court justice every year. [56:23] This is a budget hearing to fulfill our duty to appropriate the people's taxes responsibly. [56:28] I imagine that the questions will go beyond the fiscal to the fundamental. [56:34] Both are proper, in my view, but in the case of the court's essential independence, difficult. [56:40] I want to begin this discussion today, though, on the budget by noting that the very real threats faced by our judiciary, [56:47] which the chairman has mentioned, is in our mind. [56:52] According to the U.S. Marshal Service, more than 200 federal judges have had threats made against them in this fiscal year alone. [57:02] With a deeply divided country and increasingly violent rhetoric being directed at judges, Congress must provide sufficient funding to ensure the safety of all judicial personnel. [57:15] The FSSGG bill, already advanced by the Appropriations Committee, would provide $9.62 billion for the judiciary and $207 million for the Supreme Court itself. [57:27] That's a 4.8% and 7.3% increase, respectively. [57:31] Included in the bill is a $28.9 million increase for court security. [57:37] At the same time, while we take measures to protect the physical safety of judges and court staff, Congress also has a responsibility to safeguard the independence of our judiciary and its ability to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. [57:55] Part of that is making certain that there is adequate funding for the public defenders. [58:01] And I'm glad that we were able to address the budget shortfall for defenders serving fiscal year 26. [58:07] In fiscal 27, the committee supported funding defender services at $1.79 billion, with an increase of $26 million over the last year. [58:19] That is a constitutional responsibility both the courts and Congress have. [58:24] The rule of law depends on a judiciary that is properly funded. [58:29] Especially now when we need a strong judiciary to protect Americans from the imposition of a theory, in my view, of executive supremacy. [58:37] This administration is routinely engaging in conduct that tests the limits of our Constitution. [58:45] We must remember that our republic is a three-legged school. [58:50] The Congress, the executive, the judiciary. [58:54] I believe that each branch must be held accountable by the other two, as well as that each branch has a constitutional duty to protect the constitutionally granted powers of the other two. [59:08] The American people whom we represent expect the Supreme Court and all our federal courts to play its constitutional role as a transparent and neutral arbiter of the law. [59:19] Just as we in Congress must do our duty to hold the executive and judicial branches accountable, so too must the court carry out its responsibility to keep an overreaching executive or legislature in check without overreaching itself. [59:35] At the same time, I believe the court has a responsibility to guard against the executive subverting the Article I powers of the Congress from usurpation by the executive. [59:50] That was the founder's genius of separation of powers and the assurance of checks and balances. [59:58] That is how America's judiciary maintains the trust of the people and prevents constitutional crisis. [1:00:04] As John Adams said, we are a nation of laws, not of men. [1:00:10] Maintaining the checks and balances to ensure that precept prevails remains the difficult but necessary job of each of the branches. [1:00:21] In doing so, each branch will earn the structural deference our founders intended, and they believed essential to perpetuate the democratic republic they so ably constructed. [1:00:34] Justices, I thank you and your seven colleagues for the work that you do, and I look forward to this hearing and what you have to say today. [1:00:45] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:00:46] Thank you, Mr. Hoyer. [1:00:47] I now recognize the ranking member of our full committee, the gentle lady from Connecticut, Ranking Member DeLauro, for her opening remarks. [1:00:56] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you and Ranking Member Hoyer. [1:01:01] And maybe I'll start with may it please the court, may it please the Congress. [1:01:07] Justice Kagan, Justice Coney Barrett, welcome. [1:01:10] Thank you so much for appearing before this committee today. [1:01:13] The last time, as has been said, any sitting justice of the Supreme Court appeared before this committee was in 2019. [1:01:21] And my hope is that this sets a precedent on the role of the United States House of Representatives. [1:01:27] I fully appreciate the unique constitutional role of the court and the immense responsibilities each of you carries as members of our nation's highest tribunal. [1:01:39] Traditional independence is fundamental to our constitutional system, and nothing about today's hearing should be understood as diminishing that principle. [1:01:50] At the same time, independence does not preclude accountability. [1:01:56] Cabinet secretaries, agency heads, and leaders of independent institutions routinely appear before Congress to explain how taxpayer dollars are being spent and to answer questions regarding their budget requests. [1:02:12] And the Supreme Court should be no exception. [1:02:16] Each year, Congress exercises one of its core conditional constitutional responsibilities by appropriating funds for the federal judiciary. [1:02:26] It is therefore entirely appropriate that the court appear before this committee each year to discuss its needs, to answer questions from the representatives of the American people. [1:02:40] As two of our nation's foremost constitutional scholars, I thank you. [1:02:45] I thank you for recognizing that the Constitution vests the power of the purse in the Congress in bringing your budget before us today. [1:02:55] Turning now to your fiscal year 2027 budget. [1:03:00] No one can ignore the disturbing rise in threats directed at members of the federal judiciary. [1:03:06] It is not lost on me or any of us the increasing prevalence and intensity of threats against not only you and your colleagues on the Supreme Court, but against judges throughout the federal judiciary. [1:03:19] As of the first of July, there have been 370 threats made to federal judges, according to the U.S. Marshal Service. [1:03:27] During the entirety of last year, there were 564 threats made. [1:03:32] At this rate, we are looking at a 31 percent year over year increase in threats against federal judges. [1:03:39] That is simply and deeply an alarming rise. [1:03:43] We are not strangers here to this heightened threat environment. [1:03:46] Members on both sides of the aisle have seen an increase in serious, credible threats of violence as well. [1:03:53] This poses a danger not only to public officials, but to the institution of democracy as a whole. [1:04:00] Our system cannot function without a reasonable guarantee of safety. [1:04:05] In recognition of this need, we approved on a bipartisan basis more than $890 million for lower court security for fiscal year 2026. [1:04:17] An increase of over $140 million compared to the previous year. [1:04:22] In the spring, this committee passed a funding bill which included over $920 million for lower court security. [1:04:29] A further increase of almost $30 million and equal to the amount proposed in your budget request. [1:04:36] We are carefully considering the additional funding requested to fortify the Supreme Court and increase security for yourselves, your families, and your colleagues. [1:04:45] We are, of course, happy, more than happy, to provide the resources necessary to ensure the safety and the security of the judicial branch. [1:04:55] But we must be diligent in our duty as appropriators. [1:04:58] For instance, will this additional funding for security be sufficient for the future, and how will that be measured? [1:05:05] Will you need to come back again for further increases? [1:05:08] Or will this be a one-time infusion, and will that suffice? [1:05:13] This is a gravely serious issue, and we must make sure taxpayers' monies is handled well. [1:05:18] What action is the court taking to strengthen public confidence through ethics, transparency, and accountability? [1:05:24] It is no secret that political divisions in our country have grown deeper over the past decade or more. [1:05:31] That, I believe, is one factor that has contributed to the erosion of trust in our system, including the Supreme Court. [1:05:38] Various scandals have also plagued the court in recent years, from leaked decisions to financial entanglements and conflicts of interest, [1:05:47] contributing to a growing sense among the public that our government exists to serve special interests and not the public good. [1:05:54] The proportion of Americans who have confidence in our courts has declined from roughly 60% a decade ago to around 35% in 2024, according to Gallup. [1:06:05] A democracy cannot sustain itself if the public has no faith in its institutions. [1:06:11] We must all work to rebuild the trust of the American people that has been lost. [1:06:17] To restore this trust, we must provide more transparency through increased financial disclosure requirements and a binding enforceable code of ethics. [1:06:27] The status quo of self-policing, voluntary disclosure, and unenforceable guidelines is woefully insufficient. [1:06:34] I say this to provide the public with the reassurance that they deserve that when a decision is handed down, it is the result of rigorous constitutional analysis, not private parochial interest. [1:06:48] Over the past few weeks, as we have approached and celebrated our nation's 250th birthday, I've spent time reflecting on the founding and on the genius of the framers. [1:07:00] Their insistence on an independent judiciary that has, in Hamilton's words, and I quote, [1:07:07] neither force nor will, but merely judgment, end quote, has proved indispensable to the endurance of our democracy. [1:07:17] I believe we all share a commitment to preserving both the independence of the judiciary and the public's confidence in it. [1:07:25] Independence and accountability are not competing values. [1:07:30] They are complementary pillars of a constitutional democracy worthy of the public's trust. [1:07:37] Thank you so much for appearing before us today. [1:07:39] I look forward to your testimony. [1:07:41] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. [1:07:43] Thank you, Ranking Member DeLauro. [1:07:46] Today, we welcome the testimony of Justice Kagan and Justice Coney Barrett of the Supreme Court of the United States. [1:07:52] Justice Kagan, without objection, your full written testimony will be entered into the record. [1:07:56] With that in mind, we ask you to please summarize your opening statement in five minutes. [1:08:00] Chairman Joyce, Ranking Member Hoyer, Ranking Member DeLauro, thank you for giving Justice Barrett and me the opportunity to present the Supreme Court's fiscal year 2027 budget request. [1:08:15] But if you don't mind, Chairman Joyce, before I do that, I would like to say a few words about Senator Graham's untimely passing. [1:08:24] Senator Graham, of course, was a member of this House before he became a senator. [1:08:29] And in part, I wish to express the entire court's condolences to his sister, the rest of his family, his many friends and colleagues here in the House, in the Senate and elsewhere on behalf of the entire court. [1:08:45] But I'd also like to make a few more personal comments. [1:08:49] You know, it's not very often. [1:08:52] Well, I'll just say that I didn't get many Republican votes when I was confirmed to the Supreme Court. [1:08:59] And that's the usual state of things today. [1:09:02] Not many Republicans vote for the nominees of somebody selected by a Democratic president. [1:09:08] And not many Democrats do the same for someone selected by a Republican president. [1:09:13] And one would not expect such a cross party, if you will, vote, certainly from somebody from a deep red or deep blue state. [1:09:23] And yet, Senator Graham voted for me. [1:09:26] And I vividly remember, because he was a vivid person, the conversation that we had in his office prior to my hearing, where he got to know me. [1:09:37] It was a long conversation. He took the opportunity to get to know me. [1:09:41] He questioned me with great seriousness and great knowledge about my record as Solicitor General, including particularly the various terrorism issues that that office had dealt with over the time I was Solicitor General. [1:09:54] And I still more vividly remember the conversations that we had at my hearing itself. [1:10:00] In the last day or so, many people have talked about how funny Senator Graham was. [1:10:08] I think Al Franken said he was the funniest man in the Senate. [1:10:12] But what I remember about that hearing was that somehow Senator Graham made me look funny, which is a harder thing entirely, by asking me what I had done on Christmas the following year. [1:10:26] And I'll skip the back and forth, but many people said to me afterwards, that exchange with Senator Graham was the moment my confirmation was sealed. [1:10:36] So I want to express my gratitude towards him, not only for his support, but for approaching the confirmation process with the kind of seriousness that he did and the kind of respect he did. [1:10:52] And I never got to know Senator Graham very well, but I can see why so many people will deeply miss him. [1:10:59] And I just wanted to convey that on behalf of me and again express the condolences of the entire court to his family and friends. [1:11:07] We are very appreciative, Mr. Chairman, of the subcommittees, constructive engagement and support. [1:11:17] You and your staff have been with us each step of the way as we've added security funding to meet the challenges of these times. [1:11:25] I personally have enjoyed our regular meetings together, which have often occurred at the court. [1:11:32] Our respective staffs also speak and share information regularly, and I look forward to our future work. [1:11:39] The Supreme Court's funding is provided separately from the lower federal courts and split between two appropriations, one for salaries and expenses related to the daily operations of the court and another for care of the building and grounds. [1:11:54] We will address the operating budget today. [1:11:57] The architect of the Capitol will submit a separate statement concerning our buildings and grounds. [1:12:02] The court's operating budget funds the daily activities you'd expect in any federal courthouse, such as library and research services, case management, visitor services, information technology, facility management and security. [1:12:18] We carry out our work with relatively modest funding. [1:12:21] Our budget represents just 2% of the judiciary branches total funding, which in turn represents one tenth of 1% of the federal budget. [1:12:32] Nonetheless, we take our responsibility as fiscal stewards very seriously. [1:12:38] In fiscal year 2027, the court is requesting an additional $14 million, a 7% increase for salaries and expenses. [1:12:49] Over the last five fiscal years, the Supreme Court's funding needs have grown on average 15% per year. [1:12:57] Aside from annual inflationary increases, recent growth in the court's budget has been almost entirely for security expenses. [1:13:08] 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. [1:13:18] I first joined the court in 2010. Our security was very different at the time. [1:13:24] The Supreme Court police focused almost exclusively on protecting the building, and our IT department focused on supporting the latest BlackBerry devices. [1:13:33] 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. [1:13:42] We began expanding our security program in earnest in 2017, initially at the behest of members of Congress. [1:13:51] We engaged government and private industry experts to evaluate our needs on an ongoing basis. [1:13:57] 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. [1:14:09] As threat assessments called for larger details, and as overtime costs correspondingly rose, we requested funding for more officers, vehicles, and support staff. [1:14:19] As events at the Capitol and other federal courthouses revealed our buildings vulnerabilities, we also added new physical security systems. [1:14:29] When personal threats increased following the Dobbs leak, we expanded our residential security and threat assessment activities. [1:14:37] Similarly, as online attacks grew in number and sophistication, we requested additional cybersecurity resources. [1:14:45] Our strategy has been consistent across security functions, expand incrementally but effectively to meet evolving security challenges. [1:14:55] We are not alone in this. [1:14:57] Although orders of magnitude smaller, the Supreme Court's police department is modeled after your own Capitol Police Department. [1:15:04] The two departments have matching pay tables and similar organizational charts. [1:15:09] They work closely together on threats pertaining to the Capitol campus and beyond. [1:15:14] 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. [1:15:26] Over the last five years, the Capitol Police Department's annual operating needs have increased 70 percent, a figure similar to the courts. [1:15:35] For fiscal year 2027, Capitol Police requested a 16 percent increase. [1:15:41] As neighbors, our two police departments will continue, I'm very sure, to work cooperatively together. [1:15:47] Our respective departments' growing needs are obvious given current conditions. [1:15:53] The Capitol Police Chief recently testified that threats against Congress are up 50 percent this year. [1:15:59] 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. [1:16:11] For some of us, those threats have come very close, and all of us live with the knowledge that they may again materialize. [1:16:19] 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. [1:16:30] We are grateful to the Supreme Court Police for all they do to support our ability to do so. [1:16:38] Again, we thank you for your invitation to come here. [1:16:42] While we cannot comment on decisions or pending cases, Justice Barrett and I are happy to answer any budget-related questions you may have. [1:16:52] Thank you, Justice Kagan. [1:16:56] I now recognize myself for questions. [1:16:59] Chief Justice Robert himself referenced a rise in threats in the judicial branch in his 2024 year-end report. [1:17:06] He specifically cited more than 1,000 threats investigated against federal judges in just the preceding five years. [1:17:12] Would you talk about how the volume and nature of threats against the court has changed over the past several years, [1:17:18] particularly following the Dobbs decision and the 2022 incident at Justin Kavanaugh's home? [1:17:23] Is the threat level changed in 2026, and what do you believe is driving that trend? [1:17:29] The numbers, you know, as you've mentioned, it was up 25% last year, on track to 38% this year, and those- [1:17:38] Microphone, please. [1:17:39] Good? [1:17:42] Yes. [1:17:43] And those statistics sound abstract, but being on the receiving end of them is not, [1:17:47] so I thought I would just share a little bit about how the threats have affected me and my family personally. [1:17:52] They have required me to, or my children, to think about and see things that children should not have to see or think about. [1:18:01] One example is when threats to my life were particularly intense a few years ago, around the time of the Dobbs leak. [1:18:08] My security details sent me home with a bulletproof vest, and I carried it into my house, put it into my bedroom, [1:18:14] dropped it down on a table, turned around, and my 12-year-old son was standing in the doorway of my bedroom, [1:18:19] and he wanted to know what it was and why I had it, and I didn't know how to respond, because maybe I lack imagination, [1:18:26] but I didn't expect that performing this service was going to put me in the position of explaining to my children [1:18:32] what a bulletproof vest was and why I had to wear one. [1:18:35] It's also been reported in the news that roughly six weeks ago, I was the victim of a swatting incident. [1:18:41] At that point, my teenage son, one of my teenage sons, opened the door to go out with friends and saw in our street, [1:18:51] it was full of police cars, who had responded to a false report of gunshots and raised voices in my home. [1:19:00] I was very, very grateful that I had Supreme Court police outside my home, [1:19:04] because they were able to stop and meet with and explain to the county police that it had been a false alarm, [1:19:10] and so the police did not actually attempt to enter our home. [1:19:14] Many of us, me included, have received threatening anonymous deliveries designed to intimidate and harass us. [1:19:22] They are often sent in the name of Judge Salas' son, who I think, as you mentioned in the beginning, Mr. Chairman, [1:19:29] is deceased because he was killed by a disgruntled lawyer who showed up at Judge Salas' home intending to kill her, [1:19:37] but her son, 20 years old at the time, opened the door and took the bullet. [1:19:41] Instead, her husband, standing behind, was seriously injured. [1:19:44] So I think the message on these deliveries being sent in his name is clear. [1:19:50] As Justice Kagan said, federal judges across the country, throughout the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, [1:19:58] continue to do their jobs without fear or favor, but the threat level is really high. [1:20:03] Over the last few years, we've seen an increase in First Amendment-related activity around D.C., [1:20:10] including the Supreme Court campus. [1:20:12] The Supreme Court building itself has had perimeter fencing up at various points in recent years, [1:20:16] what is the current state of permanent physical security upgrades to the building, [1:20:21] and how much of this budget request is dedicated to capital improvements versus ongoing personnel costs? [1:20:26] I think... Oh, go ahead. No, go ahead. [1:20:31] No, feel free. [1:20:34] Most of the money for this increase is personnel and not building arrangements. [1:20:45] We have occasionally put up perimeter fences. We don't like that. [1:20:49] We want to express a commitment to be open and transparent to the public, [1:20:54] as I know other governmental institutions do as well. [1:20:58] Occasionally, we have found it necessary, given the threat level, to put up some barriers, [1:21:04] but they come down as quickly as we can take them down. [1:21:08] So, some small part of the funding request is for building improvements, but mostly it's for security personnel. [1:21:19] Protecting the court and justice involves coordination between the Supreme Court police, [1:21:24] obviously, the U.S. Marshal Service, Secret Service, Kappa police, and local law enforcement, depending on your location. [1:21:30] Would you walk us through how those responsibilities are divided, [1:21:32] and were there any gaps or redundancies in the structure that we should be aware of? [1:21:36] We are primarily taken care of by the Supreme Court police. [1:21:42] When we needed additional residential security and the Supreme Court police was unable to staff that, [1:21:47] the Marshal Service did help us, and so our homes were protected by the Marshal Service. [1:21:53] I might be wrong about this, two years or so. [1:21:55] The Marshal Service was not able to sustain that level of support, [1:21:59] and so they asked the Supreme Court police to take that over, [1:22:02] and the Supreme Court police is now doing that with the help of contractors. [1:22:06] We coordinate with Marshal Service, you know, sometimes in travel, [1:22:10] but really the Supreme Court police does the bulk of it, and I think for physical safety, [1:22:14] there's coordination with the Capitol police, given that our grounds are so close. [1:22:18] And I should say, we like it that way, to have our own police force, [1:22:21] rather than to be reliant on the Marshal Service, which is within the Department of Justice. [1:22:26] This way, we just get more control over our own security arrangements. [1:22:32] Some of you may recall that last year we asked for a supplemental request, [1:22:37] and that was to deal with the problem that we had thought that we had a longer stretch of time [1:22:42] to make the transition between the Marshal Service and the Supreme Court police. [1:22:47] In the end, we had to make it more quickly than we thought we would, [1:22:50] and we're very grateful to the various committees in both the House and Senate [1:22:56] for making sure that we had the supplemental monies that were, [1:23:00] that enabled us to make that transition more quickly than we had thought was necessary. [1:23:05] Thank you. I now recognize Ranking Member Hoyer for any questions he may have. [1:23:09] Thank you very much. We're all very concerned about the security and the safety of our judiciary, [1:23:17] not only because of you individually, but because of the impact it would have on our system [1:23:21] and the disincentive for people to serve in the roles that are so critically important to our society. [1:23:28] Let me go to the staffing. You said similar that pay levels are similar to the Capitol police [1:23:36] and that they obviously work together and interface together. [1:23:40] Is your budget now sufficient so that you will not have contract employees outside contractors protecting your homes? [1:23:52] Not at this point. The goal is to be able to staff so that we can entirely absorb residential security within our office, [1:24:00] and I'm sure our staff can provide more details about the timeline for that, but at this time it is not. [1:24:05] Will the budget that is projected for fiscal year 27 allow you to do that, you know? [1:24:12] I think still not, but we will be getting closer. [1:24:17] And certainly our goal, and we want it to be as a short-term goal as we possibly can, [1:24:25] is to get to the point where we're not reliant on any outside contractors. [1:24:30] I think it's critically important to have people who really know you, your habits, [1:24:37] your to and fro-ing, someone who... [1:24:40] You were speaking to the choir there. [1:24:42] Well, as someone who had a security detail for 20 years in my previous positions, [1:24:50] I found it critically important that they got to know me and my habits [1:24:56] and the habits of my family and made them much more proficient in protecting. [1:25:02] So we want to make sure that that's the case. [1:25:05] Let me go to, and I'm not asking you about the substance of decisions, [1:25:11] but I am asking you, there has been a substantial increase in what I guess we call shadow decisions. [1:25:20] Is that a budget-related or policy-related phenomenon? [1:25:27] Well, let's see. I think that litigants have long had the ability to seek interim relief from the court, [1:25:34] but I think you're certainly right, Ranking Member Hoyer, that we have seen a big change in the volume [1:25:40] and the nature of such requests. [1:25:42] The court is doing its best to adapt and respond. [1:25:44] I think it's a policy question, not so much a budget one. [1:25:48] I don't know if you have some additional thoughts? [1:25:50] I'm sure there will be additional questions. [1:25:54] Does that impact on the transparency, which you referred to, [1:26:01] not putting up fences so that people had access? [1:26:04] There are concerns, obviously, that these shadow dispositions impact adversely [1:26:12] on the knowledge the public has about how the court makes its decisions [1:26:18] and who is making what decisions. [1:26:20] Can you comment on that? [1:26:22] Ranking Member Hoyer, you know, there are definitely issues with respect to the, [1:26:30] we call it the emergency docket. [1:26:32] Some of us call it the interim docket. [1:26:35] It's a terminology nightmare. [1:26:37] I call it the emergency docket. [1:26:39] And there are definitely questions about how it's appropriate to use that docket, [1:26:45] when it's appropriate to use that docket, the standards to be applied, [1:26:50] the way those standards actually work out in individual cases. [1:26:56] And you see that in some of our decisions because we are in many, [1:27:03] if not most of these cases, not unanimous. [1:27:05] There will be a majority in dissent. [1:27:08] The reason I think it's probably not appropriate, at least not now, [1:27:15] to call it the shadow docket, is because we have done, I think, [1:27:21] a better job in the recent past of where appropriate, [1:27:28] and it's not always appropriate, but where appropriate, [1:27:31] explaining ourselves at least to a moderate degree. [1:27:36] So I think if you had asked me this question a year ago, [1:27:41] I might have said that there would be, there were some cases, [1:27:44] and in fact, I did say, I had said in some public events, [1:27:48] that there were some cases where we did so little explanation [1:27:51] of what lay behind our order, [1:27:54] that lower courts had a great deal of difficulty trying to figure out [1:27:57] what that order was. [1:27:59] Were we saying something about the merits of the case? [1:28:02] Were we saying something about who had standing to contest the merits? [1:28:06] Were we saying something about appropriate remedies? [1:28:08] Nobody knew. [1:28:09] I don't think that that's so much a problem anymore. [1:28:12] I think that as we've gotten more experienced [1:28:17] in these constant requests that are coming to us [1:28:21] about requests for emergency relief, [1:28:27] that we better recognize that at least sometimes [1:28:31] there is a need for additional information. [1:28:34] And we have issued opinions and sometimes majority [1:28:39] and dissenting opinions accordingly. [1:28:41] Thank you very much. [1:28:42] Thank you. [1:28:44] The chair now recognizes Mr. Amaday [1:28:46] for any questions he may have. [1:28:47] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:28:50] To provide some context, [1:28:53] obviously security is probably rightfully so [1:28:56] at the top of the pyramid as we discuss the court and its budget. [1:29:01] How's the business? [1:29:03] I mean, you know, anybody know where you are? [1:29:07] Anybody filing this, that? [1:29:08] And you've kind of touched on it a little bit [1:29:10] in response to Mr. Hoyer's questions. [1:29:12] But to have an idea of how things are running in the machine of, [1:29:15] well, we got nine justices and here's who comes to us [1:29:19] and here's what we're doing, here's what we're turning down, [1:29:21] here's what we're accepting, [1:29:23] just to have kind of a background context to this discussion about security. [1:29:29] So, however you want to address that. [1:29:31] Sure. [1:29:32] How's business going? [1:29:33] Yeah, well, business as usual. [1:29:36] Or maybe not as usual. [1:29:39] So, we do everything we can to be transparent [1:29:43] and to welcome the public into the court. [1:29:45] We've really taken strides in adapting our website [1:29:48] to make it more user friendly. [1:29:50] So, people can come to our website, [1:29:52] they can easily access all the briefs, all the opinions, [1:29:54] the website also has information about who the nine justices are, [1:29:58] the history of the building, that sort of thing. [1:30:00] Our courtroom is open to the public. [1:30:02] We routinely have public courtroom lectures to groups that are coming in. [1:30:06] I believe all of my colleagues, I know I do, [1:30:09] speak to groups and school groups that come through [1:30:12] to educate them about the court. [1:30:14] Our curator has exhibits throughout the first floor of the court [1:30:18] to educate people about the court, [1:30:20] including a wonderful exhibit that's up about Cooper versus Aaron. [1:30:23] We have the Cooper bench from the famous case [1:30:25] that's out in the court right now, [1:30:27] complete with a video explanation of it [1:30:30] in which all nine of us participated. [1:30:32] So, I do see a need for educating the public [1:30:34] about what it is the court is doing. [1:30:36] And so, the court I think has done its best [1:30:38] to try to make that accessible to the public. [1:30:41] Great, thank you. [1:30:43] How about caseload? [1:30:44] What's the case? [1:30:45] I know threats are way up. [1:30:46] How's caseload? [1:30:47] Well, we have, as Ranking Member Hoyer suggested, [1:30:52] we have a more than ordinary emergency caseload. [1:30:55] I would say we have about an ordinary regular docket. [1:31:00] If you look back really a number of decades, [1:31:04] our docket has gone down. [1:31:08] You know, when I clerked at the court, [1:31:11] so that was, I'm afraid to say how long ago, [1:31:14] but in the late 1980s, [1:31:17] the court handled about 140 cases a year. [1:31:21] The court now handles in terms of regular argued cases, [1:31:25] maybe 70 cases a year. [1:31:27] So, a significant decrease. [1:31:29] There's a cottage industry in explanations for why [1:31:32] that decrease took place over time. [1:31:35] But for all the time that I've been on the court, [1:31:38] we've been relatively stable. [1:31:40] So, the last 15 years or so, [1:31:42] we're doing about, you know, [1:31:45] maybe one year at 75, one year at 60, [1:31:49] but something on that order. [1:31:51] So, we continue to hear cases every month [1:31:55] and to always decide, [1:31:59] always issue all our opinions [1:32:02] before July 4th every year. [1:32:05] Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. [1:32:08] Thank you, Mr. Amidate. [1:32:09] The chair will now recognize the lovely lady from Connecticut, [1:32:13] Mr. Laurel, for any questions. [1:32:15] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [1:32:17] And just a point before I get to my questions [1:32:20] with regard to the exchange with Justice Kagan [1:32:25] and Congressman Amidate, [1:32:28] it would appear that these are the court statistics. [1:32:31] In 2006, there were 10,256 total cases. [1:32:36] In term 2024, 45, almost 4,600 cases. [1:32:43] So, it is about a 55% decline. [1:32:47] I have to imagine in analyzing that. [1:32:49] This is in petitions that we talked about? [1:32:51] Yeah. [1:32:52] So that it may be that what happens there [1:32:54] is the interim shadow, whatever docket we're talking about here, [1:32:59] that may be a part of that. [1:33:03] So that there has been, you know, [1:33:07] fewer cases than you pointed out [1:33:10] that have happened in prior decades. [1:33:14] And then the issue of staffing is, [1:33:19] you know how commensurate it is, [1:33:21] than the staffing to what the case is. [1:33:24] But let me just, and I won't get into this, [1:33:27] but in terms of there's always the view out there [1:33:30] of what about cameras in the court, you know? [1:33:32] So, we have them everywhere here. [1:33:36] But as members of Congress... [1:33:38] Is that good or bad? [1:33:40] Okay. [1:33:42] I'll take a breath on that. [1:33:44] No, it's... [1:33:46] I'm sorry. [1:33:47] I didn't mean to turn it around and... [1:33:49] No, no. [1:33:50] Very good. [1:33:51] It's very good. [1:33:52] It's called transparency. [1:33:53] Anyway, my question. [1:33:56] As members of Congress, [1:33:58] we follow very strict gift and ethics rules. [1:34:02] We're not allowed to accept any gift [1:34:05] if it's over $50 at one time. [1:34:08] And there's a total value is more than $100 [1:34:12] in the calendar year from any individual. [1:34:15] There are exceptions and an entire committee. [1:34:19] We have an ethics committee that decides [1:34:21] whether a trip or a gift is allowed. [1:34:24] But as justices of the Supreme Court, [1:34:27] you can and do accept these gifts without any committee [1:34:32] or without hesitation. [1:34:34] Or maybe there's hesitation, but in any case, [1:34:36] you can accept these gifts. [1:34:38] The Supreme Court does not have a gift ban [1:34:41] or a binding code of ethics. [1:34:43] I know in 2023, [1:34:45] a voluntary code of ethics was adopted, [1:34:47] but it is entirely self-policing [1:34:50] without any mechanism for enforcement. [1:34:54] It is more permissive than the code that applies [1:34:57] to all other federal judges. [1:35:01] And just in full transparency, [1:35:03] I strongly support ranking member Raskin's [1:35:06] high court gift ban, [1:35:07] which would bring the Supreme Court justices rules [1:35:10] in line with the rest of the federal government. [1:35:12] Based on the financial disclosures available [1:35:15] for the justices, [1:35:16] tickets and trips have exceeded the threshold [1:35:19] of the, which is in the voluntary code, [1:35:22] this last year. [1:35:26] So a couple of questions from this. [1:35:30] Is this a time to make this a requirement [1:35:34] instead of a suggestion? [1:35:36] That's my first question. [1:35:38] I do. [1:35:41] Ranking Member Delora, [1:35:42] I would be happy to address the question about gifts. [1:35:46] The court follows the restrictions [1:35:48] of the Judicial Conference of the United States [1:35:50] applicable to all judges with respect to gifts. [1:35:53] And we are not, [1:35:54] there are restrictions on our ability to accept gifts. [1:35:56] We're not permitted to accept gifts [1:35:58] with some nuances and some exceptions [1:36:01] from litigants before the court. [1:36:03] And any gifts that we do accept, [1:36:06] this is by statute. [1:36:08] There's a statutory limit on reporting [1:36:10] that requires reporting of any gift. [1:36:12] I think that the limit is about $500 right now. [1:36:15] You would know they would be on our financial disclosures [1:36:17] because we have to disclose that. [1:36:19] So with respect to gifts, we do have constraints [1:36:23] and we do have our in-house counsel. [1:36:26] I mean, anytime I have any question [1:36:28] about how the code applies to a particular circumstance, [1:36:31] I always call him. [1:36:32] Did you want to address enforceability? [1:36:36] You know, on the code of conduct, [1:36:39] as you noted, we, the nine justices, [1:36:43] all agreed to a code of conduct. [1:36:45] It's specifically geared towards the Supreme Court. [1:36:48] As you also noted, there is a question about enforceability. [1:36:52] And right now the mechanism has no enforceability system. [1:36:58] And this is something on which various people [1:37:01] have spoken in the past. [1:37:03] And, you know, I've made my views known in the past, [1:37:07] which is that I think we should work hard [1:37:10] to try to figure out some enforcement system. [1:37:13] I will say that that's an extremely difficult question [1:37:17] for a pretty obvious reason, I think, [1:37:19] which is that I don't think that you would want [1:37:22] an enforcement system that was controlled [1:37:24] by the executive branch or by the legislature. [1:37:27] And this is because of what you said in your opening statement [1:37:31] about the importance of judicial independence. [1:37:33] You know, you don't want a president picking an inspector general [1:37:38] to decide, you know, which of us is breaking the rules [1:37:43] or how we're breaking the rules. [1:37:45] So I think it really has to come from within the judiciary. [1:37:49] And that's hard because, you know, [1:37:52] we sit at the top of the judiciary committee. [1:37:54] So it's hard to figure out how to have a system that makes use [1:37:59] of judicial resources to police us. [1:38:02] One idea that has been suggested by some people [1:38:05] is to use respected retired judges. [1:38:08] Right. [1:38:09] That has, you know, some pros, some cons. [1:38:12] I think that this remains an open question, [1:38:17] a question of discussion. [1:38:19] But so far, we have not resolved anything. [1:38:25] Okay, and because... [1:38:26] The chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Iowa, [1:38:28] Ms. Simpson. [1:38:31] Good morning. [1:38:33] Thank you to both of you for coming before our committee today. [1:38:35] And you were so welcoming to this full committee [1:38:37] when we came over to visit with you a few years ago [1:38:39] and have some of these similar conversations [1:38:41] about your security needs. [1:38:43] And I am so sorry you're having to deal with many of these same threats [1:38:46] that members of Congress and our families also deal with. [1:38:49] And Justice Barrett, you were sharing that story [1:38:51] about your 12-year-old. [1:38:52] My boys are 13 and 15. [1:38:53] And so I've had to have some of those very similar [1:38:56] uncomfortable conversations with them [1:38:58] about our security posture even in the middle of Iowa. [1:39:01] So I am sorry you're having to deal with that. [1:39:03] I think reasonable people can disagree [1:39:05] and unreasonable people resort to violence. [1:39:07] And unfortunately, that's where we are. [1:39:09] And so I appreciate your comments on that. [1:39:11] And I know you are not alone in dealing with those challenges, [1:39:14] but it is unfortunate nonetheless. [1:39:16] I wanted to follow up on something you started with [1:39:19] about the coordination with the marshals when you're traveling [1:39:22] for speeches. [1:39:23] Because you talk about having the Supreme Court police force, [1:39:26] but obviously working in coordination with other law enforcement [1:39:30] when you're traveling for speeches, [1:39:32] some of those teaching opportunities, other engagements. [1:39:35] So we know that those are not immune from protests [1:39:38] and First Amendment activities as well. [1:39:40] Can you speak a little bit to what that work is like [1:39:42] in terms of coordinating on the ground as you're traveling the country [1:39:45] to have some of those conversations on the ground? [1:39:48] I think some of that coordination might be something [1:39:50] we would have to say that if you wanted to talk in a skiff [1:39:53] or with staff just about the operational details. [1:39:55] But I think at a high level, I can say that when we are, you know, [1:39:58] appearing, say, at a university, there's a lot of coordination, [1:40:02] obviously, between the university security staff [1:40:05] and our security staff. [1:40:06] The same is true whenever we're at an event with local police. [1:40:09] There's coordination with local law enforcement authorities. [1:40:13] And when we are interacting with other entities within the judiciary, [1:40:18] lower courts or at circuit conferences, [1:40:20] then there is a lot of coordination with the marshal service. [1:40:22] I think some of the specifics I probably shouldn't, [1:40:25] probably don't know enough to speak, you know, with specificity, [1:40:30] but probably would have to say that would be like in a private meeting. [1:40:33] No, absolutely. [1:40:34] And I think happy to have a further conversation about that [1:40:37] because simply we just want to make sure that you feel safe [1:40:40] as you're going out and exercising your duties [1:40:43] to be open to the public, right, [1:40:45] and have those conversations in a public setting. [1:40:47] It's of utmost importance that you can do that and feel safe [1:40:49] and that you're getting adequate law enforcement response [1:40:51] on the ground no matter where you're having those conversations. [1:40:54] Speaking of recruitment, I just kind of wanted to talk about that as well [1:40:57] because you mentioned that you're on par with Capitol Police [1:41:00] and many of the arrangements are similar to what Capitol Police are. [1:41:04] We know that the court's currently offering a $60,000 hiring bonus [1:41:08] for Supreme Court police. [1:41:09] Can you speak a little bit to the difficulties that you're having [1:41:12] in recruiting top talent to take some of these open positions [1:41:15] and where things currently stand with... [1:41:17] Yeah, well, this is a tough time to hire police officers. [1:41:20] It's a challenging recruitment environment [1:41:22] that maybe fewer people are going into the policing profession, [1:41:27] and so you're competing with a lot of entities [1:41:31] for the same top qualified people. [1:41:34] Notwithstanding that, we've managed to do pretty well. [1:41:38] We do offer a recruitment bonus. [1:41:42] We like to think we're a pretty good place to work [1:41:46] and we take great care to make that so, [1:41:52] but it's a challenging time. [1:41:54] And how do you balance, obviously, that recruitment [1:41:57] with some of the risks that, I mean, people very publicly see, right? [1:42:00] And you're the face of that, obviously, [1:42:03] in not only the decisions that are made, [1:42:05] but obviously people come and see the court [1:42:07] and people come and want to hear from you. [1:42:08] How do you balance that recruitment with some of those risks [1:42:12] in terms of getting people in the door? [1:42:14] Yeah, well, people definitely come in the door. [1:42:19] I mean, we are, you know, we have many visitors to the court. [1:42:24] We have a packed courtroom most of the time when we hear argued cases. [1:42:31] So we're trying, you know, very hard not to let it interfere [1:42:36] with the court's openness to the public, [1:42:38] and we'll continue to try our best to do that. [1:42:42] And just to make sure that we have the security personnel, [1:42:45] the security resources we need to ensure safety within [1:42:50] an essentially public building. [1:42:52] And just a question about, [1:42:55] and maybe it's something that needs to be addressed in a SCIF as well, [1:42:58] because you think about the limelight that's on you, [1:43:00] and that may shift depending on a case that's being heard [1:43:03] or a decision that's been offered. [1:43:04] Do the number of officers or marshals assigned to you vary [1:43:08] depending on that limelight, [1:43:09] or is the detail pretty consistent no matter who you are? [1:43:12] We are each assigned between four and eight members of a security detail, [1:43:16] but in particular moments when the need arises, [1:43:19] and especially if someone is under a particular thread [1:43:21] or if they're speaking more publicly so they're more in the limelight [1:43:24] in an event, that number increases, [1:43:26] and we're able to pull from other resources within the court. [1:43:29] And over time, we'd like that detail number to increase. [1:43:33] So if now it's four to six, maybe eight members of a security detail, [1:43:38] you know, we'd like to increase that over time [1:43:40] when we get to our full staffing needs. [1:43:42] And as ranking member Hoyer had spoken, [1:43:44] and I know I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman, [1:43:46] you know, these people get to know your routines [1:43:48] and making sure that you have people on your detail [1:43:50] who are familiar with your activities is critical. [1:43:52] So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. [1:43:54] Thank you, Mrs. Hinson. [1:43:55] Chair now recognizes Mr. Okay. [1:43:57] Thank you. [1:43:58] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both for being here. [1:44:01] I couldn't make our most recent informal conversation, [1:44:03] but I remember a few years back, [1:44:04] you both were very generous with your time, [1:44:06] and I really appreciated that discussion. [1:44:08] So thank you both for that. [1:44:10] I think there's no question that any of us, [1:44:14] there should be no partisan difference [1:44:16] in wanting to make sure everyone's secure. [1:44:18] We have our own challenges, as you've heard. [1:44:20] I think holidays seem to bring it out [1:44:22] for at least members of Congress or in my area. [1:44:25] At Christmas time, we had bomb-sniffing dogs. [1:44:27] I was wondering if I was going to start having to have treats out there for them [1:44:30] if they were going to be coming that often. [1:44:32] My brother's a judge in Milwaukee County. [1:44:34] He recently, there was a court trial over someone who had threatened his life [1:44:37] via a family court. [1:44:39] So, you know, I'm glad you're here to talk about those security concerns, [1:44:43] but I think hopefully you can tell we're like one party right now [1:44:46] when it comes to this and making sure that you have that security. [1:44:49] I do want to say, though, I think at a 30,000-foot level, [1:44:53] the public also has some questions about our institutions, [1:44:56] and incumbent on us then is to make sure that we're at times [1:45:00] either explaining or reforming to meet where some of those concerns are. [1:45:04] Right now at the executive branch level, I think, you know, [1:45:07] people are seeing some unprecedented amounts of new things happening [1:45:11] that in 250 years of this country haven't happened, [1:45:13] and that's causing concern. [1:45:15] Here at the legislative branch, I would argue, [1:45:17] I think people think we've lost our copies of the Constitution [1:45:20] and that we're a co-equal branch of government. [1:45:22] We're not doing our jobs. [1:45:23] But I think when it comes to your branch, specifically, [1:45:26] the two areas I hear the most, and I do a lot of town halls, [1:45:30] are the shadow docket or emergency interim docket [1:45:33] and then the issue around code of conduct. [1:45:36] But shadow docket's one I really like the explanation. [1:45:39] I'm not a lawyer. My brother is. [1:45:41] But, you know, the amount of cases that you took up last year [1:45:45] were surpassed, or the last session, were surpassed 63 [1:45:49] on this so-called shadow docket versus 56 on the regular. [1:45:52] And if you go back in history, during the Bush and Obama [1:45:59] Solicitor General Times, emergency relief was only done 18 times [1:46:03] combined over 16 years, right? [1:46:05] So this is a huge change in how this, and I'm going to use shadow docket [1:46:09] because I'm a journalism major. I was taught to talk at eighth grade level [1:46:12] so everyone understands it. [1:46:13] That's the vernacular I think people understand. [1:46:15] But, you know, these are, they're not really fully brief. [1:46:18] They're not fully argued opinions in the same way [1:46:21] that I think that people are used to the tradition [1:46:23] of the respected tradition of the court. [1:46:25] They're unsigned, usually emergency orders, [1:46:30] but that definition of what's an emergency [1:46:32] certainly seems to have changed given the number of cases. [1:46:35] It usually was with elections or like someone was on death row [1:46:38] when you dealt with this and now it's about whether trans people [1:46:41] can serve in the military or cases that may not be seen [1:46:44] by the public in the same way. [1:46:47] So my question is just help me understand this. [1:46:50] You know, there's, I have a podcast that we had a conversation [1:46:53] on this with an expert one time and they said a few suggestions [1:46:56] they had and let me run this by you and if you just talk a little [1:46:59] more about this so I can understand why the cases have gone up so much. [1:47:03] You know, they suggested things like restoring more mandatory jurisdiction [1:47:07] to the court so that you're not maybe cherry picking in some, [1:47:11] in some ways empowering lower courts to seek guidance from you ahead of time. [1:47:15] So maybe sometimes that could take care of things. [1:47:17] An inspector general for the judiciary. [1:47:20] Anything you want to talk about? [1:47:21] Those are some things that came up, but I, [1:47:23] I would like to be able to explain to people next time I have a town hall [1:47:26] and people ask about this, why this rise has happened in areas [1:47:30] that I don't think we really expected those cases. [1:47:32] And while you said there might be a decline, I think just this Trump presidency alone [1:47:39] in 16 months, there's what, 34 of these? [1:47:42] It may be my numbers off. [1:47:43] It might even be higher by now. [1:47:45] There are 41 in the first Trump full term. [1:47:48] That seems like a rapid expansion of this. [1:47:50] So I talked too long, but if you could address that, I'd appreciate it. [1:47:52] Thank you, Congressman Pocan. [1:47:54] I'll address something about the numbers. [1:47:57] And I saw something about this in the news in the last couple of days. [1:48:01] I'd have to sit down to figure out the numbers. [1:48:03] I think that it could be that what the numbers are referring to are, [1:48:07] we have mandatory jurisdiction in a sense over all of these emergency applications [1:48:11] because every single one of them we have to either grant or deny. [1:48:15] So to the extent that we've disposed of say 67, [1:48:19] I'm not exactly sure what the number is. [1:48:21] Some of those may be denies. [1:48:23] It's not that there were 67 grants, but in every single case, [1:48:26] we wind up doing something on the emergency docket [1:48:29] because we've either denied relief or we've granted relief. [1:48:32] So, you know, as long as we have that jurisdiction, [1:48:35] we don't have the discretionary jurisdiction like we do in the merits docket [1:48:38] where we have cert authority and we choose which cases to take. [1:48:42] On the emergency docket, it's like you just take all comers [1:48:45] and you have to grant or deny these motions as they're filed. [1:48:48] I didn't mean to suggest, Mr. Congressman Pocan, [1:48:53] that the overall numbers had declined, just that there was a decline in the [1:48:57] when we grant relief with no explanation, [1:49:02] that we do that less frequently than we once did. [1:49:05] But I think, you know, you've made some excellent points about the, [1:49:10] there are downsides of using emergency relief. [1:49:18] We don't get the kind of briefing that we ordinarily do. [1:49:22] We don't get the argument that we ordinarily get. [1:49:28] And we should consider those downsides when we decide how often to grant this relief. [1:49:35] Now, I will say that the court again, you know, as its question is like, [1:49:41] why are all these people coming to us for this relief when they didn't in the past? [1:49:46] And partly it has to do with the fact that the court did grant some of these petitions [1:49:51] and then you encourage everybody else to bring them to you. [1:49:54] And now it's become, you said like, how's business? [1:49:57] How's business? [1:49:58] Like business is pretty good on this side, [1:50:00] because people see that there is at least a potential for us to grant relief. [1:50:06] And so why not file a petition? [1:50:08] And the court, I think, again, has, and there are differences, [1:50:14] there are disagreements among the nine of us. [1:50:17] We talk about this all the time. [1:50:18] Sometimes a majority does something and there's a dissent. [1:50:22] But I think over time, we have at least tried to do better in important cases, [1:50:36] ensuring that we have some degree of sort of regular-ish process, [1:50:40] so that there are some emergency petitions. [1:50:43] For example, the one that was just decided involving the Federal Reserve Bank, [1:50:48] which we almost treat as though it were a regular case. [1:50:52] In other words, we ask for argument. [1:50:54] We make sure we get a sufficient briefing to decide it. [1:50:58] So occasionally we've done that, [1:51:00] and that is something that I think we need to consider going forward as well. [1:51:07] Thank you. [1:51:08] Thank you, Mr. Spokane. [1:51:09] The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, for five minutes. [1:51:13] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Justices, for being here. [1:51:16] Great to see you again, and thank you for the opportunity. [1:51:19] We've had to speak with you about this over at your place a couple times over the last few years. [1:51:26] Most of my questions have been addressed in those meetings regarding security. [1:51:29] I did want to just point out that this is not just your personal security, [1:51:35] but it's also the IT systems that need to be updated. [1:51:37] It's the cybersecurity that you're constantly attacked [1:51:40] that's also being addressed in this as well, correct? [1:51:43] Correct. [1:51:44] The cybersecurity attacks have been up, you know, by magnitudes year after year. [1:51:49] AI is, and the rapid advancement of AI is making that more and more possible. [1:51:54] We haven't suffered the kind of paralyzing attacks that some of the lower courts have, [1:51:58] but in seeing that, that has caused us to try to ramp up very quickly our cybersecurity protection. [1:52:04] And so some of the funding that we're seeking is for additional cybersecurity experts who can come in. [1:52:10] And we've tried to proceed very responsibly. [1:52:12] We've consulted. [1:52:13] We had an external review done by experts, and then we've assembled a tiger team inside the court [1:52:19] to try to implement those suggestions, because it obviously impacts not only the independence of the judiciary, [1:52:25] but there are national security risks to having our systems be vulnerable. [1:52:29] One of the big issues recently was the leak that happened. [1:52:32] And the court was doing its best effort with the tools available at the time to track down the leak. [1:52:38] I don't know if we've found the leaker yet. [1:52:41] I don't think it's public. [1:52:43] The marshal issued a report at the conclusion of our internal investigation saying that we had not at that time. [1:52:50] At that time, right. [1:52:51] But yeah, she also said in that report that were additional evidence, [1:52:55] were leads to surface, that they would be pursued. [1:52:57] And there have been additional leaks over time, too. [1:53:00] And this is something that all nine justices take extremely seriously, [1:53:05] because we can't do our business. [1:53:07] We can't engage in confidential communications, which is the best way to operate, [1:53:11] is to be fully open with one's colleagues about one's views. [1:53:16] And if you think that those views are going to appear on the front page of the newspaper, [1:53:22] you pull back. [1:53:23] You don't have the kinds of conversations that I think the court really depends on to do great work. [1:53:31] And so, you know, this is something that has frustrated all of us, [1:53:38] and that we're continuing to make efforts to resolve. [1:53:43] Is it your view if there's a police force that reported directly to the Supreme Court [1:53:50] that would include cybersecurity officials, I imagine, or any of the sort? [1:53:53] Is it your view that they would be subject to congressional subpoena, [1:53:57] or would that be a separation of powers issue? [1:54:00] I don't think we have or are authorized to express a view on that. [1:54:05] Okay. [1:54:06] One issue I do think that Americans are concerned with, [1:54:12] and it's really appreciative to have you here, [1:54:16] I wish we could have more of these because of our constitutional role, [1:54:20] to be a check in a sense on, not necessarily on you all, your decisions certainly, [1:54:26] but on the judiciary system, is one thing that's really concerned me [1:54:33] is what we've seen in nationwide injunctions, [1:54:36] what we've seen in what's been lawfare in the sense of we've seen lawyers [1:54:42] who were supporting the president be disbarred, [1:54:46] while those who campaigned and even attacked him invented extraneous legal platforms [1:54:55] to go after him, there was no disciplinary action at all. [1:55:00] And what concerns me about that is the ABA, the American Bar Association, [1:55:07] doesn't serve officially as a gatekeeper, but in many ways serves as a gatekeeper, [1:55:12] which traditionally that hasn't been that big of a deal, [1:55:15] but they are the only recognized, they're the only accrediting agency [1:55:20] for law schools recognized by the federal government. [1:55:23] Yet, lately they've kind of taken a partisan bent [1:55:28] on a number of their policy outcomes and initiatives, [1:55:33] including transgender surgery for children, advancing DEI requirements [1:55:39] for accredited universities for law students, [1:55:43] even targeted universities who did not embrace those. [1:55:46] They're weighed in on immigration policy, voting rights, [1:55:50] opposed the display of 10 Commitments in public schools. [1:55:53] They have opinions on a number of different international issues, [1:55:56] including urging support for the people in the Western Sahara, [1:55:59] self-determinant. [1:56:00] You know, so it's just, it's all to say it's gone beyond making sure [1:56:05] that we have good people who are qualified representing us, [1:56:09] yet they serve in many ways as a gatekeeper. [1:56:12] And I'm curious what would be the right way to approach that. [1:56:17] Texas Supreme Court, I know, issued an opinion that basically said [1:56:21] they shouldn't be the sole gatekeeper anymore, [1:56:24] at least for Texas' concern. [1:56:27] Whether we should have more creditors, [1:56:29] whether we should leave that to the states, [1:56:31] I think there's a congressional role in this, [1:56:33] and so that's why I'm asking. [1:56:36] If I may, we have a hard stop of 1145, [1:56:43] because the justices need to go over to the Senate and testify there. [1:56:46] I want to make sure everybody gets their five minutes. [1:56:49] So if you can respond to that in very quick order, [1:56:53] or we can move on to the next questioner. [1:56:55] It's up to you. [1:56:56] I'll say something very quickly. [1:57:00] Each state is in charge of the admissions bar requirements [1:57:05] for lawyers, and so I think that lies with the states. [1:57:09] Thank you. [1:57:10] Now I recognize the gentle lady from Washington. [1:57:12] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you both so much for being here. [1:57:16] One of my concerns with Congress's increase [1:57:22] in the security funding for members of Congress [1:57:25] that we recently executed here [1:57:28] was that it's not really addressing the root cause [1:57:31] of the increased threats of violence [1:57:34] and the underlying sort of lack of accountability [1:57:38] for people making these threats. [1:57:41] I don't want to make soft targets out of my local electeds, [1:57:45] my teachers, my nurses, [1:57:48] because we are hardening our security infrastructure [1:57:51] as elected officials. [1:57:54] You know, if my kitchen is flooding, [1:57:57] I turn off the water before I start mopping up around the kitchen. [1:58:01] And so I'm wondering what can be done to increase the prosecution [1:58:05] and accountability of those who make threats against public servants, [1:58:09] and how can these funds and this appropriation [1:58:12] be leveraged to support that prosecution [1:58:15] and turn down the volume and increase the accountability, [1:58:18] because all taxpayers are bearing the burden of these threats? [1:58:22] I think that that's largely a question to make [1:58:27] to the Justice Department and to other prosecuting authorities. [1:58:31] That, you know, we have no power to prosecute [1:58:34] or not prosecute particular crimes [1:58:37] to decide where the priorities lie. [1:58:42] And that that might be, [1:58:45] that incredibly important question [1:58:48] might better be addressed to prosecuting officials. [1:58:50] One of the things I've wondered about is, you know, [1:58:53] I've, you know, none of us want to talk about the threats [1:58:57] that are made against us. [1:58:58] We don't want to give anybody ideas, right? [1:59:00] Right. [1:59:01] Especially having young kids at home. [1:59:04] But one of the questions is, [1:59:06] the evidence that's collected by Capitol Police, [1:59:10] how are they making, [1:59:11] how can their investigation be executed in a way [1:59:14] that would provide supporting evidence for a prosecutor [1:59:17] as they're considering picking up this case or not? [1:59:20] Is that in the realm? [1:59:21] I think that that would be something [1:59:24] that our police department would be very happy to talk to you [1:59:27] or your staff about in a private setting. [1:59:29] I actually don't know the answer to that question [1:59:31] of what the police do to maintain evidence to build the case. [1:59:35] But I'm sure in a SCIF or other private setting, [1:59:38] that would be something that you could explore. [1:59:41] And would that be considered as part of this apportionment [1:59:44] for security funding? [1:59:45] That I don't know. [1:59:47] That strikes me as general operational. [1:59:50] As Justice Kagan said, [1:59:51] we don't have any authority to prosecute within our branch [1:59:54] and our police don't either. [1:59:55] So that seems like it's a best practices, [1:59:58] best current practices question [2:00:01] about how the police handle that now. [2:00:03] Yeah. I mean, it's my view that as we are, [2:00:06] you know, it's not just about the individual threat. [2:00:10] We have to maintain our security. [2:00:12] But the way that we are pursuing that security [2:00:15] should be done in a way with a longer view [2:00:17] towards more accountability [2:00:19] and better use of taxpayer resources [2:00:21] and a more deliberative democracy. [2:00:23] I've seen some people make the argument [2:00:25] that rising security concerns will lead justices [2:00:27] to opt out of appearing at events [2:00:29] when the crowd is known to not be friendly. [2:00:32] Do you think there's any merit to that argument? [2:00:34] And if so, how does that impact the credibility [2:00:38] of the institution as it continues to be viewed, [2:00:42] rightly or wrongly, by many as increasingly partisan? [2:00:45] I can say that personally, myself, I've spoken at many events [2:00:51] that I wouldn't describe as friendly. [2:00:53] I've been protested a lot and spoken at events [2:00:56] where I know protestors will be. [2:00:59] And that doesn't deter me from appearing. [2:01:01] But if there were serious threats at the facility, [2:01:05] I've had to, I've encountered some of that before, [2:01:08] then, of course, you can't remain out in the public place. [2:01:11] So that's different. [2:01:13] And I don't actually know, and again, this would be a question [2:01:16] that perhaps could be discussed in a private meeting or a SCIF. [2:01:19] I don't actually know how often that has happened. [2:01:22] But I think when there are actually threats to life, [2:01:25] you know, then obviously the public event can't go forward. [2:01:28] I think it's, I'm presuming, rare for a Supreme Court Justice [2:01:34] to have young children at home. [2:01:36] I'm wondering, Justice Tony Barrett, [2:01:41] if the allocation being made here for security is sufficient [2:01:44] for provision of security services for your children. [2:01:49] I'm very grateful for the residential security. [2:01:53] I think that is the primary. [2:01:56] I mean, that has just been huge for us. [2:01:58] I think questions about, oops, sorry, [2:02:00] questions about the allocation of resources [2:02:02] and the number of detail and that sort of thing. [2:02:05] I think I would refer that to the SCIF as well. [2:02:07] Great. Thank you. [2:02:08] Thank you. [2:02:09] I yield back. [2:02:10] Thank you for your questions. [2:02:11] We now recognize Mr. Edwards for his question. [2:02:15] Thank you for being with us this morning. [2:02:17] Because we're running close on time, [2:02:20] I'm going to eliminate the niceties [2:02:22] and get straight to the questions. [2:02:24] Does the court's IT budget include funding for AI-assisted legal research [2:02:29] or document review tools? [2:02:31] And if so, what safeguards are in place to maintain confidentiality? [2:02:36] I don't think that our budget includes a specific, you know, [2:02:45] appropriation for AI. [2:02:47] I think that, you know, this is a question that we're looking at [2:02:50] very closely in terms of what our rules should be going forward, [2:02:54] what the best practices in this area are in terms of how justices, [2:03:00] how their clerks, how their assistants use AI [2:03:03] and make sure that it's used appropriately, [2:03:06] but not used on a, where it's not, [2:03:10] where it's likely to create more dangers than anything else. [2:03:15] Have you identified any other opportunities [2:03:17] to streamline administrative functions through technology [2:03:22] or maybe even shared services? [2:03:24] I think the court is always seeking efficiency, [2:03:30] and I think we operate on a pretty lean staff [2:03:33] in terms of how our technology works. [2:03:36] I mean, I do think that our IT staff works very hard [2:03:40] to make things work efficiently on the inside. [2:03:43] As Justice Kagan said, I mean, I know a lot of corporations [2:03:46] and maybe Congress too are turning to AI to gain efficiencies, [2:03:49] and we're not there yet because of the risks that AI could present, [2:03:55] but it is something that we're studying. [2:03:57] And, you know, perhaps AI seems to be infiltrating everything, [2:04:01] so I'm sure at some point in the future it will be the question. [2:04:03] I resist using the letters AI. [2:04:06] It's so abused. [2:04:10] I'd rather just say new technology. [2:04:15] Thank you. [2:04:16] Speaking of staffing, how many current unfilled positions [2:04:20] are there in the Supreme Court? [2:04:23] Can you give us any perspective on what those are [2:04:26] and how long they may have been vacant? [2:04:29] Okay, if you do know that, you're better than I am. [2:04:32] I do not know that. [2:04:33] Does anyone know that? [2:04:35] I think we'll have to get back to you on that. [2:04:38] We can send something over. [2:04:39] Well, as an appropriator, I'm always really curious [2:04:42] about that sort of thing. [2:04:44] We have an incredibly, the amount of time that people spend [2:04:53] on the court constantly amazes me. [2:04:55] So every year we have these events where we give little pins [2:04:59] to people and so forth, and especially when they retire. [2:05:02] And they, you know, it's like 30 years on the court, [2:05:06] 40 years on the court, 25 years on the court. [2:05:09] So this is not a building which is in constant turnover [2:05:13] in terms of its employees. [2:05:15] There is really long-term service in this building. [2:05:18] I think people like to work there. [2:05:21] I think people feel honored to work there. [2:05:23] And the result is that we really don't have to worry [2:05:26] about a lot of turnover. [2:05:28] Last question on the appropriations front. [2:05:34] Have there been any recent audits or reports by the AG [2:05:39] where there were any material weaknesses found [2:05:42] that have not yet been resolved? [2:05:44] Material weaknesses in our expenditures or budgets? [2:05:48] Right. [2:05:49] The total operation of the Supreme Court. [2:05:51] Is that a no? [2:05:55] No? [2:05:56] That's a no. [2:05:57] Okay. [2:05:58] Well then, since that answer was so quick, let me ask. [2:06:01] I should have dragged it out. [2:06:03] Let me ask one more question. [2:06:07] What deferred maintenance or capital investment [2:06:13] is there still listed as a backlog? [2:06:17] And is that for public consumption? [2:06:22] I think that the budget for the grounds [2:06:25] is not part of our current security, [2:06:28] our current budget requests. [2:06:30] So I'm not sure what maintenance or grounds expenses [2:06:34] would be included in that [2:06:37] through the architect of the capital. [2:06:38] Thanks. [2:06:40] Next time we're going to bring your controller. [2:06:43] Thank you for being here. [2:06:44] Thank you, Congressman. [2:06:45] There's a severe backlog in all federal buildings [2:06:47] as far as deferred maintenance. [2:06:49] I'll recognize Mr. Ivey for five minutes. [2:06:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:06:57] I appreciate that. [2:06:58] And thank you to the justices for joining us today. [2:07:01] I wanted to follow up on the shadow docket issue, [2:07:06] emergency docket issue. [2:07:09] We're not policing your vote. [2:07:11] You can call it whatever you want. [2:07:12] Whatever you want. [2:07:13] I recognize the sensitivity about it. [2:07:15] But I do, and I thank you for your comments about this. [2:07:19] We found comments that you all had made at public events, [2:07:22] and so I thought it's something that I could raise. [2:07:25] One of the things I wanted to ask about [2:07:27] is with respect to the injunctive relief, [2:07:30] temporary injunctions that were put in place [2:07:33] that had come up to you all, [2:07:35] and you all looked at irreparable harm. [2:07:37] I think, Justice Barrett, [2:07:39] you kind of noodled about this publicly [2:07:41] on a couple of occasions. [2:07:43] And I wanted to get your take on that, [2:07:46] because just to be candid, [2:07:48] I represent Prince George's County. [2:07:49] We have tens of thousands of federal employees [2:07:52] who've been laid off or forced out during this time period, [2:07:56] in part during what's been going on with the litigation in these cases. [2:08:01] And frankly, the strategy for many of these was [2:08:04] if you can get injunctive relief for them [2:08:06] so they can stay on the job, [2:08:09] at least they can keep their house, [2:08:11] keep their kids in college, [2:08:12] make sure they can put food on the table. [2:08:14] To the extent those injunctions were lifted, [2:08:16] because I guess some of these don't have opinions, [2:08:20] but I guess some of the justices thought [2:08:22] that this didn't constitute irreparable harm. [2:08:25] You know, it was pretty damaging from the perspective of them. [2:08:29] And it looked like the analysis was focused mainly from the government, [2:08:33] I mean, the Trump administration's perspective. [2:08:37] So I wanted to get your take on that. [2:08:39] To me? [2:08:41] Well, to me. [2:08:43] Yes, ma'am, but to both of you. [2:08:45] Let's see. [2:08:46] So I think the specifics of individual cases [2:08:49] or something that we're not prepared to get into in the hearing, [2:08:53] just because that would be especially, [2:08:56] I don't know exactly which of the orders that you're talking about, [2:08:59] but especially if they were unreasoned orders, [2:09:02] then to talk about the reasoning of them [2:09:04] would disclose the internal deliberations of the court, [2:09:07] which, you know, would be inappropriate for me to do. [2:09:10] I would say that in our opinions, [2:09:12] including in our emergency docket opinions, [2:09:15] we lay out the factors that are considered. [2:09:18] You know, in considering grants of irreparable, [2:09:23] of emergency relief, excuse me, [2:09:25] and irreparable harm is one of those factors, [2:09:27] as is likelihood of success on the merits, [2:09:29] balancing of the equities. [2:09:31] And so I think the factors are laid out quite plainly, [2:09:36] how they apply in any individual case, [2:09:39] or how we have applied them in individual cases. [2:09:41] I wouldn't want to. [2:09:42] That's fair. [2:09:43] But I'm not asking specifically for individual cases. [2:09:46] Is there a general approach from your perspective? [2:09:49] Because you did lay out irreparable harm as one. [2:09:51] And I think you also mentioned in one of your September 9, [2:09:55] 2025 speeches that you did look at it [2:09:58] from the Trump administration's perspective. [2:10:01] Go ahead. [2:10:02] Please finish. [2:10:03] I wanted to see if there's also a view, [2:10:06] from the perspective in this instance, [2:10:08] is the plaintiffs who, [2:10:09] or the parties who were government employees, [2:10:13] or whoever, [2:10:14] who were on the opposite side of that. [2:10:16] Okay. [2:10:17] I now understand your question. [2:10:18] Yes. [2:10:19] Those factors, [2:10:20] they're from a case called Enken. [2:10:22] Those factors, [2:10:25] it's built into the test itself, [2:10:28] that you gauge irreparable harm, [2:10:31] likelihood of success on the merits, [2:10:33] from the point of view of the applicant. [2:10:35] So if it were the employees, [2:10:37] if they were the applicant, [2:10:38] it would be the irreparable harm to the employee [2:10:41] of not receiving the relief that they seek. [2:10:44] If the person who seeks emergency relief is, [2:10:48] say, the government, [2:10:50] then it would be evaluated from that perspective. [2:10:53] That's just built into the test itself, [2:10:55] which is in the opinions and the cases. [2:10:57] I do think, though, [2:10:58] that the test also has room for what we call [2:11:01] the balance of the equities. [2:11:03] The equities. [2:11:04] And that allows you to take into consideration also [2:11:07] what's going to happen to the non-applicants [2:11:11] in any given case. [2:11:12] Now, again, how that happens is a different question. [2:11:17] Yes, true. [2:11:18] True. [2:11:19] Excellent. [2:11:20] And just a quick point on that front. [2:11:22] For example, NIH, [2:11:25] I want to ask you to answer this [2:11:27] about the particulars of it, [2:11:28] but one of my constituents had been a scientist [2:11:32] doing research on Alzheimer's. [2:11:35] And the clinical trial was shut down [2:11:37] and she was forced out. [2:11:38] And so it terminated not only her work, [2:11:40] but the scientific research [2:11:42] that we would all benefit from. [2:11:44] Two quick points before I run out of time. [2:11:46] One is the Secret Service. [2:11:48] From the standpoint of your work [2:11:50] with respect to your protection, [2:11:54] we did a lot of work. [2:11:55] The committee was set up after the attempted [2:11:58] to assassinate President Trump. [2:12:00] Well, not candidate Trump then. [2:12:02] There were a lot of deficiencies found, frankly, [2:12:05] by what the Secret Service had done. [2:12:07] I think they've improved what their work is. [2:12:10] I'd encourage you to have your police team do that. [2:12:13] And then lastly, [2:12:14] I know you answered with respect to Mr. Pocan, [2:12:17] the ethics piece. [2:12:18] Your five minutes are up, please. [2:12:19] We'd love to hear about what's going forward. [2:12:20] We now recognize Mr. Alford, please. [2:12:21] Thank you, Chairman Joyce and ranking member. [2:12:26] And thank you for the justices for coming today. [2:12:28] I really appreciate that. [2:12:29] I do want to set the record straight as we begin, though. [2:12:32] While we all love hearings before we vote [2:12:37] on the appropriation bills, [2:12:40] we have a very aggressive schedule [2:12:43] for these appropriation bills. [2:12:45] The Chairman's objective was to finish them all [2:12:48] before the end of June. [2:12:49] We actually got them done by mid-June. [2:12:52] That facilitated the need for rapidity [2:12:55] and trying to make sure that we got as much information [2:12:58] as possible. [2:12:59] Part of that included coming to the Supreme Court [2:13:02] on March 5th. [2:13:03] And we discussed many of these things. [2:13:06] This was a bipartisan effort [2:13:08] to go with your invitation to come [2:13:11] and hear your budgetary needs. [2:13:13] And so I appreciate that endeavor. [2:13:15] I appreciate the members of this subcommittee [2:13:18] who did go across the street [2:13:20] to hear your concerns. [2:13:21] And we heard some very disturbing deficiencies. [2:13:24] And while we can't talk about all those [2:13:27] in this public setting today, [2:13:29] please know that those are noted. [2:13:30] Those were included in the consideration [2:13:32] for the appropriations bill that we did complete. [2:13:36] And one of the issues that came up [2:13:41] was the need for a security entrance [2:13:45] for the Supreme Court building. [2:13:49] Justice Kagan, could you describe what this will look like? [2:13:53] And did we provide the adequate funding to make this happen? [2:13:57] I think we don't know exactly what it would look like. [2:14:01] But we are concerned about people coming into the building [2:14:06] right now before they've been checked essentially [2:14:09] and only being checked when they're in the building. [2:14:13] And we're concerned as well with the ability to enter, [2:14:17] for cars to enter. [2:14:21] We've actually gone a significant way [2:14:24] in addressing that issue essentially [2:14:26] by closing off the street behind the court. [2:14:29] And we're very grateful to local authorities [2:14:32] for their willingness to do that. [2:14:34] I think the point we made at the time [2:14:35] is we have the beautiful visitor center here at the Capitol [2:14:38] that was in part a security concern. [2:14:41] It's also a great visitor center. [2:14:43] It would be kind of mirrored in a smaller fashion [2:14:46] across the street at the Supreme Court [2:14:48] and also what the President has proposed [2:14:50] with a new security entrance to the White House [2:14:52] with a ballroom on top [2:14:54] but a security measure underneath in a bunker. [2:14:57] So thank you for clearing that up. [2:14:59] One of the things I did mention at our in-person meeting, [2:15:02] which again I'm grateful for, [2:15:04] was a growing concern about the threats [2:15:06] that drones pose to government buildings [2:15:09] and protected officials, [2:15:10] not just across the street at the Supreme Court, [2:15:13] but at your homes as well. [2:15:16] How is this Supreme Court preparing [2:15:18] for that evolving threat? [2:15:19] And are there any additional authorities [2:15:21] or resources that we should consider [2:15:23] to make sure that you are protected? [2:15:26] And if you would like to, [2:15:29] we could do this in a SCIF at a later time, [2:15:31] if you feel that it's something [2:15:33] that needs to be addressed there [2:15:34] or if you want to address it generally. [2:15:36] I would say generally that we share that concern. [2:15:38] Generally, I think drone mitigation measures [2:15:40] are certainly on security's radar. [2:15:42] Well, we want to keep on top of that. [2:15:44] And, Chairman, maybe we could do something [2:15:46] in a SCIF setting to work. [2:15:48] You know, this is a growing threat [2:15:49] to all government officials. [2:15:53] And it doesn't matter what party you're in, [2:15:56] nonpartisan, this is a threat [2:15:59] that needs to be addressed. [2:16:01] And I think, Congressman, [2:16:02] that there might be ways to address [2:16:05] whether we have all the authority we need currently [2:16:09] or whether there needs to be additional statutory authority [2:16:12] that would really allow us to deal with that issue. [2:16:15] That would be an interesting conversation. [2:16:18] We're facing that here on the Hill as well. [2:16:21] And in our state and local authorities, [2:16:23] we just are wrapping up the FIFA World Cup in Kansas City. [2:16:27] And that was a concern as well, [2:16:29] the authorities to actually defend against drone activity. [2:16:33] Last question. [2:16:35] The court budget requests in recent years [2:16:38] has included increased security funding for the justices. [2:16:40] Public threats against government officials [2:16:42] have continued to rise. [2:16:43] You travel for speeches, teaching opportunities. [2:16:46] How is security funded and coordinated [2:16:48] when justices are traveling, [2:16:49] particularly with respect to protecting your families? [2:16:52] Residential security remains at our house as normal. [2:16:57] When we're away, the house remains protected. [2:16:59] So the family is protected. [2:17:02] And when we travel, [2:17:03] we have our security details travel with us [2:17:05] because, unfortunately, the threat travels with us. [2:17:08] You know, it doesn't just stay at the building. [2:17:11] If there are any gaps in that [2:17:14] where it needs additional funding, [2:17:16] please let us know. [2:17:17] All right. [2:17:18] And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chair. [2:17:19] Thank you, Mr. Alford. [2:17:20] The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, [2:17:23] Mr. Bishop for five minutes. [2:17:24] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [2:17:26] Thank you to the associate justices [2:17:28] for your appearance. [2:17:29] And let me say at the outset [2:17:31] that I fully support and appreciate [2:17:34] the need for the upgraded security [2:17:37] that has been requested. [2:17:38] And I think Congress will be responsive. [2:17:41] The Supreme Court contracts [2:17:44] many of the security services. [2:17:46] And for example, [2:17:47] you contract with the Schurtoff Group since 2018. [2:17:51] The services is provided include consultation [2:17:54] on protecting your homes [2:17:56] and review of the Dobbs leak investigation [2:17:59] that was conducted by the marshal's office. [2:18:01] In addition, [2:18:02] the individuals who man the magnetometers [2:18:07] at the court entrance [2:18:08] are not members of the Supreme Court police, [2:18:11] but they work for an outside firm. [2:18:13] And each of these contracts [2:18:14] can run into the millions of dollars. [2:18:17] Yet the court does not have the same contracting obligations [2:18:22] under federal law that other parts of the government do. [2:18:26] In the interest of transparency, [2:18:28] would the court consider publicly listing [2:18:31] any contract that it has with an outside firm, [2:18:35] security or otherwise, [2:18:37] whose annual value is greater than a million dollars? [2:18:41] I think we have, [2:18:47] Mr. Sparrow and I have not considered that question [2:18:50] or addressed that question. [2:18:51] So I think we would need to go back [2:18:53] and take it to people who have thought about that issue more. [2:18:57] All right. [2:19:00] Well, let me switch to another more policy-driven concern. [2:19:07] As of July 10th of this year, [2:19:10] 75% of President Trump's appointees [2:19:13] to the circuit and district court judgeships [2:19:16] over the combined course of his first term [2:19:19] and the current term have been men. [2:19:22] Additionally, 84% of the appointees [2:19:24] have been white, male or female. [2:19:27] And when looking across all of the active circuit [2:19:31] and district court judges as of July 10th, [2:19:33] regardless of which president appointed them, [2:19:36] nearly 60% are men. [2:19:39] Additionally, 66% are white. [2:19:42] Can you both speak to the importance [2:19:45] of having a diverse federal bench [2:19:47] that's representative of the country's demographics? [2:19:50] And might you also add the experiential [2:19:56] and other diversity for the courts itself, [2:20:00] for the court itself in your choice of your clerk pool? [2:20:06] Well, I'll take the clerk pool. [2:20:08] If that's okay. [2:20:11] You know, we all run our chambers differently [2:20:14] and each of us hires for himself or herself. [2:20:18] And so I can really only speak for myself on this. [2:20:22] I value diversity of all kinds. [2:20:25] I value diversity along the lines that you mentioned. [2:20:28] I value diversity in terms of backgrounds and views [2:20:34] and, you know, to make sure that I get all different kinds [2:20:40] of backgrounds and experiences when I'm talking [2:20:43] with my clerks in particular. [2:20:47] And I've, you know, found over the years [2:20:52] that it's, that that's perfectly possible to do. [2:20:58] You know, the standards for a Supreme Court clerk are very high. [2:21:05] It requires outstanding law school records. [2:21:09] It requires, you know, two prior clerkships, [2:21:14] usually maybe one, and judges who think very highly of the person. [2:21:19] Sometimes now we're looking at people who have worked in other jobs [2:21:24] before they come here and, and, and, and we still have more qualified people, [2:21:32] more exceptionally qualified people than any of us are able to take. [2:21:36] And I find over, over time that, you know, that it's, it's, [2:21:43] it's good to have diversity of background and experience. [2:21:47] And, and that, that is, you know, very possible to do given our applicant or now. [2:21:54] Thank you. [2:21:55] Very quickly, I'm told that most of the just, justices and their clerks [2:22:00] read your briefs electronically. [2:22:03] So I just want to ask why the court requires the litigants to print [2:22:07] and to file 40 copies of their briefs in most instances, [2:22:10] which can sometimes cost them up to $10,000. [2:22:14] Is there any, are there a basis for income-based waivers? [2:22:21] And doesn't the printing requirement now seem to be unnecessary? [2:22:27] We do have, go ahead. [2:22:32] Go ahead. [2:22:33] We do have informa prepara status, which helps indigent litigants. [2:22:39] I will say that some of us do read hard copies. [2:22:42] I am old school in that respect. [2:22:44] But I think those questions are ones that the clerk's office works at. [2:22:48] And I think it's important to help those who cannot afford. [2:22:51] Thank you. [2:22:52] Now the chair recognizes the vice chair of this committee, [2:22:54] Mr. Lalota, for his five minutes. [2:22:56] Thank you, Chairman. [2:22:57] Justice, it's good to see you. [2:22:58] It was good to see you on March 5th at the court. [2:23:00] And we appreciate you being here today. [2:23:02] Justice Kagan, thank you for your warm comments on Senator Graham. [2:23:06] I, like many Americans, watched your interaction with him [2:23:09] during your confirmation hearing. [2:23:11] It was a good moment of bipartisan candor, [2:23:14] one that we don't have enough of in this town. [2:23:16] And I want to say thanks for not only that exchange, [2:23:18] but for your opening remarks that addressed his commitment to service [2:23:21] to our great country. [2:23:23] I want to discuss some of the budget requests. [2:23:26] And you're asking for $89 million for security, [2:23:29] including 24-7 protection, additional protective personnel, [2:23:33] and cybersecurity enhancements. [2:23:35] Justice Barrett, can you briefly and broadly express how the change [2:23:40] in the threat environment has necessitated that higher level [2:23:43] of investment by the Congress? [2:23:45] I think it's because, you know, when I was a law clerk, [2:23:50] Justice Scalia did not have protection all the time. [2:23:53] Justice Kagan mentioned she didn't have it when she began. [2:23:55] But now the threats are constant and they are always there. [2:23:59] And so it's necessary now in daily activities. [2:24:05] Unfortunately, I honestly feel like if for the sake of my privacy, [2:24:09] I wish it weren't so. [2:24:10] But it's necessary for protection in daily activities [2:24:14] to have a security detail. [2:24:16] And frankly, our detail, one reason for our longer-term plan [2:24:20] to increase the size of our details [2:24:22] to come closer to cabinet-level officials [2:24:26] is burnout and exhaustion. [2:24:29] A detail of four to eight people, [2:24:31] when they have to monitor you around the clock, [2:24:33] when they drop me off, [2:24:34] I think I might have been mentioning this [2:24:35] in our meeting on March 5th, [2:24:36] when they drop me off at 11 o'clock at night [2:24:38] and then it's the same team that has to come back [2:24:40] the next morning. [2:24:41] I mean, it's just a lot of hours. [2:24:42] Thank you. [2:24:43] Your feedback then and now is very instructive for this. [2:24:46] May I add just a bit? [2:24:47] Of course. [2:24:48] You know, this began in part because of Congress [2:24:52] and it began in about 2016, I think. [2:24:55] When Justice Scalia died and he died in a place in Texas [2:24:59] and there were no security people in the immediate area. [2:25:02] I think the nearest were a couple of hours away, [2:25:05] the nearest marshals. [2:25:07] And we're very grateful because Congressman Issa [2:25:10] and Congressman Cummings came to visit the court [2:25:13] and they were doing an investigation, [2:25:17] you mentioned, of the Secret Service [2:25:19] and they were doing one at the time. [2:25:21] And that required that they look at different institutions [2:25:25] and departments, security personnel. [2:25:27] And they came over to the court [2:25:28] and they said to the Chief Justice, [2:25:30] this was how the Chief described it to us. [2:25:33] They said, kind of like, we think you're crazy. [2:25:35] You know, that you have less security than it does. [2:25:39] And we think that you have to do better. [2:25:44] And that was really the start when Congressman Issa [2:25:48] and Congressman Cummings came to the Chief Justice [2:25:51] and the Chief Justice reported to us. [2:25:53] And, you know, we were a little bit like, do we really? [2:25:56] Because it's easier living life without security [2:25:59] than living life with security. [2:26:01] But we started. [2:26:02] And we started slowly, incrementally, carefully, [2:26:05] making sure that we balanced all the necessary factors. [2:26:09] Then, of course, the Dobbs leak happened [2:26:11] and that really increased the urgency of the entire thing. [2:26:14] But we've been working on this now for about a decade. [2:26:18] And actually, I think, are grateful to Congress [2:26:21] for coming to us and saying, [2:26:23] you have to up your game in this area. [2:26:25] And there's still more work to do in this area. [2:26:27] I think that both sides of the aisle [2:26:28] take your security seriously. [2:26:30] Justice Kagan, you mentioned earlier in your testimony [2:26:33] the wanting to decrease your reliance on the U.S. Marshals [2:26:36] and increase your reliance on your own court police. [2:26:40] Can you describe the impetus behind that dichotomy? [2:26:43] Yeah, nothing against the U.S. Marshals [2:26:45] who do a terrific job. [2:26:48] But I think this allows us to, you know, [2:26:53] whenever we have to make a policy decision [2:26:56] about how to use our security personnel, [2:26:58] it's our policy decision. [2:27:00] We don't have to convince anybody else. [2:27:02] And what several members have suggested, [2:27:05] I think is absolutely true, [2:27:07] that you want a completely stable workforce. [2:27:10] So people who are providing you with security really know you. [2:27:14] And to the extent that we're relying on the marshal service, [2:27:17] they're coming, they're going, [2:27:18] they have other responsibilities. [2:27:20] They probably won't be committed to an individual justice [2:27:23] or to the court full time. [2:27:25] I think I agree with your point. [2:27:27] You should have a separation of powers in your own autonomy, [2:27:30] your own security. [2:27:31] And we should want to empower you to do that. [2:27:33] Very briefly, in the world of finite budgeting, [2:27:37] as you do more of one thing, [2:27:39] you by necessity often do less of one thing. [2:27:41] And we're right to consider doing more with respect to your security. [2:27:44] Are we missing something when we do that? [2:27:46] Are we doing something less when we do more with security? [2:27:50] Are you doing less work? [2:27:52] Are you delivering less opinions? [2:27:54] Are we somehow degrading your ability to deliver justice in other areas? [2:27:58] I think we carefully steward our resources. [2:28:00] And I think our budget reflects the needs [2:28:02] that we have to continue fulfilling our constitutional mission. [2:28:05] Thank you. Appreciate you being here. [2:28:06] I yield back, Mr. Chairman. [2:28:07] Thank you, sir. [2:28:08] And now we recognize the wedding feast at Canaan. [2:28:12] We saved the best for last. [2:28:13] And our Cardinal Womack. [2:28:15] Thank you. [2:28:16] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:28:17] Former head of this committee. [2:28:18] And what a joy it is to have our justices in front of us this morning. [2:28:22] I've been around these precincts for a while now. [2:28:25] I remember back in the day when it was Justice Kennedy and Justice Breyer that were here. [2:28:32] You two have done very well today, but not quite as entertaining as those two guys. [2:28:37] I can promise you that. [2:28:39] And let me also acknowledge a couple of familiar faces in the crowd. [2:28:44] Judge Dowell, George Everly, who is back at the court now, and the great work that they do. [2:28:52] We've had terrific relationships down through the years, and that has not changed with the court. [2:28:58] And so I commend you for that and for this front row of people who obviously are your support staff and help this court continue its important mission. [2:29:14] I don't have any budget-related questions. [2:29:17] But in my remaining time, I'm going to give you an opportunity to speak to the rest of the people in this room. [2:29:25] When I came in, and I came in late this morning, there was a line of people outside this door. [2:29:31] I'm not sure that line is probably still there. [2:29:33] And I was taken aback by how young these people look. [2:29:40] So if you look beyond the front row in this room this morning, you will see the faces of young people from all walks of life who all, to me, look like they're at least under 25 years of age. [2:29:58] And they are driven here for different reasons. [2:30:02] I want to give you both an opportunity in the remaining time I have, three minutes, to speak to the hearts and minds of these young people who one day could be sitting exactly where you're sitting today, and give them hope that what we do in this country is, and what you do in the court, is part of our genius as a country. [2:30:30] And, Justice Kagan, I'm going to let you go first. [2:30:35] You have these young people's complete attention this morning. [2:30:40] You're raising the bar here. [2:30:43] Thank you so much, Congressman Womack, for that wonderful opportunity. [2:30:48] I think I would say to the young people in this audience and the young people everywhere, what is just true of our democracy, that it rests in their hands. [2:30:58] And how we function as a country going forward is in large measure up to them. [2:31:04] And that they should take all the opportunities that they can to learn about our country, and to learn about its history, and to learn about our governmental institutions, and then to figure out how they can do better, and leave the world a better place than they found it. [2:31:22] And I think that I am optimistic that this generation of people will do just that. [2:31:30] Justice Parrott. [2:31:31] Hear, hear. [2:31:32] I agree with everything Justice Kagan said. [2:31:33] And I would add that I am heartened that so many young people are here and waiting in the line to want to see this hearing. [2:31:40] Because I think it shows engagement in our democratic process. [2:31:43] And I think what they have seen is really constructive bipartisan effort in this hearing to address these issues. [2:31:51] And I hope they see that in the courts work. [2:31:53] We work hard to, you know, disagree well when we disagree, and we agree a lot of the time. [2:31:58] And I think that kind of constructive engagement, and not just throwing your hands up and saying, I'm not going to deal with people with whom I disagree, is what we need to move forward. [2:32:06] Great advice. [2:32:07] Thank you for the great courtesies you've extended. [2:32:09] Yes, I'll... [2:32:10] That's a 9-0. [2:32:13] And that's pretty rare, but that's a 9-0 decision. [2:32:17] Thank you for the many courtesies you and your teams have extended to my office and to this committee. [2:32:24] And we respect the work of the court and continued best wishes. [2:32:29] I yield back. [2:32:31] Thank you. [2:32:36] I will admit that Judge Dow is getting off awfully easy today, but that's for another day. [2:32:41] The ranking member of the full committee has asked for a moment to address something that she didn't get to in her statement. [2:32:50] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I wanted to say to Mr. Womack, which is a very... [2:32:56] The gravitas of what you've asked and the responses are really heartening and should be to all of us, and mostly including our young people who are today who are hungry to be engaged and involved. [2:33:08] My question goes back to something I was talking about, and Justice Kagan, it was just a couple years ago. [2:33:13] This has to do with the... [2:33:15] You said the Supreme Court should consider an independent enforcement mechanism for its ethics code involving a panel of respected federal judges. [2:33:25] Do you still support that? [2:33:27] You know, I personally do. [2:33:29] I think that we would be better off with an enforcement mechanism. [2:33:34] And I think, you know, it's not to say I think that my colleagues are taking this code incredibly seriously. [2:33:40] I understand. [2:33:41] You know, making every effort, and I think successful efforts, to live by it. [2:33:47] But if nothing else, for public confidences. [2:33:50] Right. [2:33:51] For the integrity of the court. [2:33:52] And also an enforcement mechanism can, you know, also make clear that not every accusation, not every charge has anything to it. [2:34:01] And can make clear, this is off base. [2:34:04] This is wrong. [2:34:05] There's nothing here. [2:34:06] But I think that it would be a good thing to do. [2:34:11] As you say, I think it's really important that it come from the judiciary itself. [2:34:15] There are real complexities about how that would be done. [2:34:18] But I have not changed my mind. [2:34:22] And Justice Barrett, do you support that effort? [2:34:26] I'm less certain. [2:34:27] I mean, I'm certainly fully committed to the code, as are all of our colleagues. [2:34:31] But because of some of the complexities that Justice Kagan identified, I'm just not quite sure. [2:34:37] The judiciary moves slowly. [2:34:39] The court moves slowly. [2:34:40] We have turtles everywhere because of that. [2:34:42] And I think that if we had an enforceable body to enforce the code, it would have to come from within the judiciary. [2:34:50] Without question. [2:34:51] And I just think that it's a question of who selects the judges? [2:34:54] How is the panel comprised? [2:34:56] There's just a lot of complexity. [2:34:57] Well, there's lots of integrity with regard to the court. [2:35:00] There's no doubt about that. [2:35:02] But a mechanism. [2:35:03] Every other body has that. [2:35:05] We have a committee. [2:35:07] All the federal courts do. [2:35:10] It's just the Supreme Court that does it. [2:35:12] And it should come from the judiciary. [2:35:14] And my hope is that that be for the integrity of the court. [2:35:19] We're all under real fire these days. [2:35:22] And that includes the court. [2:35:24] I think we have to demonstrate at every turn that we are understanding that of the kind of morality that we need to have. [2:35:39] And that we need to demonstrate to the public about how important we take the roles that we have. [2:35:46] And that we're not somehow abridging the system or abusing the system. [2:35:50] Thank you very, very much. [2:35:51] With that, our time has concluded. [2:35:52] I would like to thank both Justice Kagan and Justice Connie Barrett for their being here today and for your answers. [2:35:58] There may be some members of this panel who would also like to submit questions for the record. [2:36:03] Please submit any questions for the record to the subcommittee staff within seven days. [2:36:07] This subcommittee stands adjourned.