Sen. John Kennedy told Fox News on Tuesday that the Supreme Court's request for a roughly $20 million budget increase deserves the same skepticism he'd apply to any federal agency, no matter how real the security threats facing the justices may be.
The Louisiana Republican, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, didn't mince words about the court's appetite for additional funding. The justices want $228 million for the next fiscal year, which begins October 1. More than $15 million of that request is earmarked for security enhancements, including six additional agents per justice and a new off-site residential security office.
Kennedy's message was blunt: the court already has formidable protection, and Congress shouldn't reflexively open the checkbook. The comments came as Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett made rare back-to-back appearances before congressional committees to personally lobby for the money, a move that itself signals how seriously the court views the current threat environment.
Speaking with Fox News host Griff Jenkins, Kennedy framed the court's request as part of a broader Washington spending problem. As The Hill reported, the senator drew no special distinction between the justices and any other arm of the federal government looking for more money.
"They're like everybody else up here. Their favorite type of spending is more."
He followed that with the line that captured the exchange: "There's not a money fairy up here."
Kennedy acknowledged the threats but questioned whether more money is the right answer when each justice already travels with a personal security detail of between four and eight officers. He put a fine point on it:
"I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but four to eight cops with you at all times as part of your security detail is strong as horseradish."
He pledged to review the request but made clear the court would receive no preferential treatment. "I'll take a look at their request, but I'm not going to just automatically treat them any differently," Kennedy said.
Kagan and Barrett clearly see the matter differently. Their decision to appear before lawmakers at all was notable, Supreme Court justices rarely testify on Capitol Hill, and back-to-back hearings from two sitting justices underscored the urgency the court attaches to its security shortfalls.
Barrett told House lawmakers that the threat data doesn't capture the human weight of what justices and their families experience. She pointed to her own household.
"The statistics sound abstract but being on the receiving end of them is not."
Barrett described her Virginia home being targeted in a "swatting" incident this spring, a tactic in which someone makes a false emergency report to provoke an armed law enforcement response at a target's residence. She also recalled returning home wearing a bulletproof vest after the 2022 leak of the Dobbs decision, which overturned the constitutional right to an abortion and triggered protests outside the court and at the homes of conservative justices. Barrett recounted an interaction with her son upon arriving home in the vest.
The political tensions surrounding the court have only intensified since then. Some Democratic governors have called for radical reform of the Supreme Court, including court-packing, adding a layer of institutional hostility that makes the security question harder to dismiss.
Kagan, for her part, focused on the numbers. She told lawmakers the court wants to expand each justice's protective detail over time. "Over time, we'd like that detail number to increase," she said.
The justices' testimony is backed by data from the U.S. Marshals Service, which has recorded at least 370 threats toward federal judges in the current fiscal year and conducted more than 500 protective investigations. Those figures cover the entire federal judiciary, not just the Supreme Court, but they illustrate the scale of the problem the justices are describing.
The most dramatic incident in recent years involved Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Sophie Roske showed up at Kavanaugh's Maryland home carrying a pistol, zip ties, and pepper spray. The episode shook the court and prompted bipartisan calls for enhanced judicial security at the time.
Meanwhile, some in Congress have taken a very different approach to the court's funding. One Democratic congressman has threatened to cut Supreme Court funding over a grievance involving Justice Alito's son, a reminder that the court's budget is not insulated from partisan leverage.
That dynamic puts the justices in an awkward position. They must appeal to the same lawmakers who, depending on the political moment, either want to protect the court or punish it.
Kennedy's skepticism is not unreasonable on its face. A $20 million increase, nearly a 10 percent jump, demands scrutiny, especially when Congress is supposed to be tightening the federal belt. His point that existing details of four to eight officers per justice represent serious protection is fair. Most Americans, including most members of Congress, don't travel with armed security at all.
But the question isn't whether the justices already have some protection. It's whether that protection is adequate for the current threat level. Barrett's swatting incident, the attempt on Kavanaugh's life, and 370-plus threats against federal judges this fiscal year alone suggest the answer is not obvious.
The broader political environment around the court makes the calculus more complicated. Senate Democrats have floated expanding the court and imposing term limits, proposals that feed the kind of institutional hostility that can translate into real-world danger for the people who sit on the bench.
And the next Supreme Court vacancy, whenever it comes, will only raise the temperature further. The confirmation process itself has become a flashpoint for political combat, and each cycle of escalation makes the justices more visible targets.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has not announced a vote or markup on the court's budget request. Kennedy's comments suggest at least one influential Republican will push back on the full amount. Whether other committee members share his skepticism, or side with the justices, remains to be seen.
The court's request includes not just additional agents but also a new off-site residential security office, though the full breakdown of how the $15 million-plus in security spending would be allocated has not been made public in detail.
Kennedy is right that there's no money fairy. But if the justices are telling Congress they need more protection, and the threat data backs them up, the responsible move isn't to wave the request away, it's to audit it carefully and fund what's justified. Fiscal discipline means spending wisely, not pretending the bill doesn't exist.
