Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett testified before House and Senate appropriations committees on Tuesday — the first time Supreme Court justices have appeared before Congress since March 2019. The official purpose was the court's $228.4 million FY2027 budget request, about 10% more than last year, with $14.6 million earmarked for personal security. The total judiciary-wide security ask is $921 million. What they got were questions about an unenforced ethics code, a fast-track emergency docket that's outpaced the regular docket for the first time, and who exactly is responsible for the surge in threats against the justices. Threats are up 38% this year, following a 25% increase the prior year.

1. The Code Has No Teeth (Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Sen. Jack Reed, Justice Kagan)

The court adopted a voluntary ethics code in 2023 after the Thomas and Alito travel scandals — and it hasn't changed anything.

No mechanism exists to sanction a justice. The court adopted the code after reporting revealed that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito had accepted luxury travel and gifts without disclosure. Rep. Rosa DeLauro pressed both justices on what enforcement exists, then answered her own question: "Every other body has that. It's just the Supreme Court that doesn't." Sen. Jack Reed called the code "more aspirational than practical."

Kagan said she wants outside enforcement. She told the committee she'd support a committee of well-respected federal judges with real enforcement authority. She acknowledged the difficulty: "I don't think that you'd want an enforcement system that is controlled by the executive branch or by the legislature." That's as far as she went — but a sitting justice saying the court needs outside accountability is genuinely unusual.

Democrats also tied the ethics question to who's threatening the justices. Sen. Jack Reed cited Trump's description of justices who ruled against his tariffs as "fools, lap dogs" and called that language "very dangerous to our court." Kagan agreed that kind of talk is "really unhelpful" and "dangerous," while stopping short of naming Trump directly.

2. But Congress Shouldn't Be the One to Fix It (Justice Barrett, Sen. Susan Collins, Sen. Bill Hagerty)

Barrett agrees threats are real. She doesn't agree that Congress should have any say in fixing them.

Barrett isn't sold on external enforcement. Where Kagan said she'd welcome a judicial oversight panel, Barrett said she was "less certain," raising questions about who would select the panel and whether the complexity was worth it. For Barrett, enforcement should come from within the judiciary — not from another branch looking in.

Republicans shifted the blame to bipartisan rhetoric. Sen. Susan Collins cited Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer's 2020 warning that Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh "will pay the price" and "release the whirlwind," calling those words "inappropriate" and directly endangering. Sen. Bill Hagerty put the focus on information leaks from within the court as the real security threat. Republicans argued: tone down politics on all sides; don't pin this on one party's rhetoric.

The specific threats don't map to one party's framing. Barrett described a swatting incident at her home six weeks ago — someone filed a false gunfire report, police flooded the street, and her teenage son opened the door to "an armada of police cars." She also disclosed that harassment packages and pizzas arrive at justices' homes addressed to "Daniel Anderl" — the name of federal Judge Esther Salas's son, killed in 2020 by a man with a grievance against the judge. Police arrested a Mississippi man near the Capitol — he'd been carrying a handgun when he asked for directions to the Supreme Court.

3. The Shadow Docket Is the Real Problem (Rep. Mark Pocan, Brennan Center, Justice Kagan)

Trump's administration has won about 75% of its emergency cases at the Supreme Court since January 2025.

Emergency cases outnumbered argued cases for the first time. The court issued 63 shadow docket decisions versus 56 on the regular docket. Rep. Mark Pocan noted that Presidents Bush and Obama used the emergency docket "only eight times across 16 years." In 2025 alone, the court fielded 32 emergency cases.

Trump's administration has been winning most of them. The Brennan Center found the administration prevailed in about 75% of its emergency cases since January 2025. These cover immigration enforcement, federal employee firings, grant freezes, and tariffs — major policy decided in days with minimal briefing on either side.

Kagan was surprisingly candid about the costs. She acknowledged the court has expanded the shadow docket partly because litigants "see that there's at least potential to grant relief" — meaning the court's own behavior invites more emergency filings. She said some earlier orders left lower courts struggling: "lower courts had a great deal of difficulty trying to figure out what that order was." Barrett's response was more structural: "You just take all comers, and you have to grant or deny these motions as they're filed."

Where This Lands

The security funding will likely pass without much fight — both parties want to protect the justices. Everything else is harder. Kagan has now publicly called for outside ethics enforcement, which puts her at odds with Barrett and with the court's traditional stance of self-governance. Republicans see the "both sides" rhetoric frame as the fair read; Democrats are naming Trump directly. And the shadow docket remains the question neither justice fully answered: who decides when emergency relief is appropriate, and what accountability exists when a 75% administration win rate looks less like emergency relief and more like a back channel for major policy.

Sources