WASHINGTON: US Supreme Court justices told Congress on Tuesday that escalating threats have forced them to confront dangers once unthinkable for the nation’s top judges -- including explaining bulletproof vests to their children.
But in rare public testimony, they also delivered a defiant message: the court would continue deciding cases “without fear or favor” despite rising intimidation and a charged political climate.
The appearance came as the judiciary sought millions of dollars in new security funding after a bruising term that deepened tensions with President Donald Trump.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan began a day of testimony before House and Senate panels that control federal spending, the first such appearance by sitting members of the nation’s top court since 2019.
“For some of us, those threats have come very close, and all of us live with the knowledge that they may again materialize,” Kagan, a liberal justice, told lawmakers.
“But as the chief justice has said, all members of the court can do their jobs as they believe legally right, adjudicating cases without fear or favor.”
Barrett, who was sent home with a bulletproof vest around the time of the 2022 leak of the draft ruling overturning the nationwide right to abortion, described finding her 12-year-old son standing in her bedroom doorway after she put the device down.
“I didn’t expect that performing the service was going to put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was and why I had to wear one,” she said.
The testimony came after a divisive term in which the court delivered major rulings on Trump’s agenda, including decisions blocking his effort to end birthright citizenship and striking down sweeping global tariffs.
Trump has praised the conservative-dominated court when it has sided with him, including on presidential immunity, but has sharply criticized judges and justices who have ruled against him.
Barrett, whom Trump nominated in 2020, has drawn particular anger from some conservatives after joining some high-profile decisions against the president despite remaining a reliable vote for many conservative legal outcomes.
