NATIONAL

Supreme Court Justices Make Rare Plea to Congress for Expanded Security Funding After Close Calls, Including 'Swatting' Incident

Justices — including Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett — told lawmakers their safety is at risk and pressed for millions more to beef up protection in a rare testimony before Congress.

By Steven Tauriello • Freedom News • July 14, 2026

By Steven Tauriello

In a seldom-seen appearance before lawmakers, Supreme Court justices told Congress that their personal safety has been jeopardized and urged lawmakers to approve more spending on security, several news organizations reported. The testimony, described across outlets as a rare Capitol Hill appearance, included detailed accounts of threats and an appeal for additional funding — including a request for "millions" of dollars, according to reporting.

Rare appearance and the message to lawmakers

News organizations that covered the session said multiple justices made an unusually public trip to Capitol Hill to press Congress for greater resources to protect the court. Reuters described the event as a "rare Capitol Hill appearance" in which justices warned of threats directed at them. ABC News also reported that the justices were set to "testify before Congress on increasing security funding in [a] rare appearance."

The Associated Press summarized the message in blunt terms: justices told Congress their safety is at risk and that more must be spent on security. CNN reported that at least two justices — Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett — directly demanded more funding in the session, signaling that the court's concerns extended beyond private exchanges into public testimony.

Concrete examples: a 'swatting' incident and close threats

Coverage by NBC News said Justice Amy Coney Barrett recounted a "swatting" incident in her testimony before Congress. NBC's summary did not provide additional details about the incident in its headline summary beyond noting that Barrett had recounted it during testimony.

CBS News reported that justices warned lawmakers that "threats have come very close," a description that outlets attributed to the justices during their appearance. The AP likewise reported that the justices characterized their safety as being at risk, adding that their comments to lawmakers emphasized the seriousness of the threats they face.

What the justices asked for

According to multiple outlets, the justices urged Congress to increase security funding for the Supreme Court. Scripps News reported that the justices asked for "millions" in new security funding, framing the request as a concrete appeal for significantly expanded resources. CNN characterized the justices' remarks as demands for more funding, and AP likewise conveyed that the justices told lawmakers more must be spent on security.

News summaries did not include a single, uniform dollar figure or a detailed breakdown of exactly how additional funds would be allocated. Reporting across the outlets confirms the scope of the request as substantial but does not provide a precise, universally reported dollar amount in the material summarized by those outlets.

Who spoke and who attended

Coverage identifies at least two justices — Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett — as participants in the appearance. CNN specifically named Justices Kagan and Barrett as pressing for more security funding. Other summaries referred to "justices" in the plural and to "US justices" without listing specific names. NBC highlighted Barrett's testimony; Reuters and AP described the presence of justices without enumerating which colleagues were on the Hill.

The summaries do not provide a full roll call of which justices were present, which congressional committee or members posed questions, nor the duration of the session. Those details were not included in the headline summaries provided by the reporting outlets.

How outlets framed the urgency

News organizations emphasized the unusual nature of the justices' public testimony and the sense of urgency in their appeals. Reuters cast the appearance as a rare effort to warn lawmakers about threats. AP framed the session as a candid warning about the personal safety risks justices face. CBS quoted the justices' assessment of the proximity of the threats — "threats have come very close" — underscoring the immediacy described in the testimony.

Scripps' reporting highlighted the fiscal ask — the call for millions more in security funding — as the tangible policy request emerging from the justices' appearance. ABC and other outlets also noted that the testimony was directed at increasing security funding.

Consistencies and gaps across reporting

Across the coverage, there is consistent reporting that justices made a rare, public appeal to Congress to bolster their security and that they characterized threats as serious. Multiple outlets cite the same core elements: an unusual Hill appearance, warnings about threats, and requests for more funding.

At the same time, the summaries leave open key specifics. The publicly summarized reports do not present a detailed dollar figure that all outlets agreed on, do not list the complete set of justices present, and do not include the full, verbatim testimony or the full set of questions and answers from lawmakers. In particular, NBC alone reported the detail that Justice Barrett recounted a swatting incident; other outlets reported the broader warning about threats without detailing that particular example.

What the reporting does not confirm

The source summaries do not confirm whether Congress will act on the request, the precise funding amount requested in writing or legislation, or a timetable for any legislative response. They also do not provide comprehensive public transcripts of the testimony, lists of additional incidents or threats cited beyond the swatting account reported by NBC, or a full accounting of which security measures the justices said would be funded by any additional appropriations.

Those missing elements — including a confirmed, specific funding proposal and a complete list of justices who testified — remain open questions based on the summaries provided by the outlets.

Why the appearance matters

Legal observers and lawmakers typically treat public appearances by sitting Supreme Court justices on Capitol Hill as uncommon. Multiple outlets called the session "rare," a characterization that underscores both the institutional significance of the court's public appeal and the gravity with which the justices approached the security issue.

The justices' decision to speak directly to lawmakers — and to name specific types of incidents, according to NBC's reporting on Barrett's account — signals an effort to put the court's safety concerns squarely on the legislative agenda. Whether that effort will translate into specific appropriations or legislative action was not addressed in the summaries available from the reporting outlets.

Next steps and outstanding information

Based on the reporting summarized by the outlets, the immediate next step is for Congress to consider the justices' appeals as it weighs federal funding priorities. The summaries do not indicate a timeline for action or a formal proposal that lawmakers have already introduced in response.

Journalists and editors should look to future reporting for official statements from the Supreme Court, formal requests or memos submitted to Congress, the committee record and any transcript of the testimony, and lawmakers' responses or proposed appropriation measures to fully understand the implications of the justices' testimony.

Bottom line

Multiple news outlets reported that Supreme Court justices made a rare appearance before Congress to warn of threats to their safety and to press for increased security funding. Reporting consistently describes the event as unusual, the warnings as urgent, and the ask for additional resources as substantial — with Scripps News specifically saying the justices asked for "millions" more in funding and NBC recounting a swatting incident described in testimony. The summaries do not provide a detailed, consistent account of all facts, leaving open a number of verification points about exact funding figures, the full list of justices who appeared, and the formal legislative response.