Supreme Court justices usually ask the questions. On Tuesday morning, two of them sat down to answer Congress. Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Elena Kagan walked through Capitol Hill and into a House hearing room for an appearance so rare that no sitting justice had testified before Congress since 2019. The pair came from opposite wings of the Court, yet arrived with the same urgent concern: protecting the justices and their families has become serious federal business. The security stakes were already being laid out as the hearing began: Rep. Hoyer says more than 200 federal judges have faced credible threats of violence this year alone. This just before Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett testify about SCOTUS $228 million budget request, which includes safety enhancements for justices. pic.twitter.com/Mypj9vTTBV — Joe Khalil (@JoeKhalilTV) July 14, 2026 The optics carried weight before either justice spoke. Barrett, appointed by President Trump, often votes with the Court’s conservative majority. Kagan, appointed by President Barack Obama, is a leading voice on its liberal wing. They have sharply different views of the Constitution. Threats aimed at a justice’s home erase every ideological boundary. The House Committee Repository formally listed Kagan and Barrett as the only witnesses for Tuesday’s hearing before the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee. The hearing began at 10 a.m. Eastern in the Rayburn House Office Building. Its official title was plain: a budget hearing for the Supreme Court of the United States. That narrow description placed the focus on money, staffing and physical security rather than a replay of the Court’s latest opinions. Lawmakers still had room to range widely in their questions, which is one reason an appearance like this carries unusual tension. Members of Congress routinely summon Cabinet secretaries and agency heads. Sitting justices operate at a greater distance from the political branches, making the sight of two of them at a witness table an event in itself. House appropriators announced the hearing early Tuesday: The judiciary plays a critical role in our constitutional system. Today, Appropriators will welcome the Supreme Court for an FY27 budget hearing. FSGG Subcommittee Chairman @RepDaveJoyce gavels in at 10AM. Follow along: https://t.co/KhQD0uqW5r pic.twitter.com/MSdqKrNyUt — House Appropriations (@HouseAppropsGOP) July 14, 2026 The U.S. Courts fiscal 2027 budget summary puts hard numbers behind the security appeal. The Supreme Court seeks $210.3 million for salaries and expenses, plus $18.1 million for care of the building and grounds. Its largest new program request is $14.6 million and 84 full-time positions for expanded personal protection. That would fund six additional agents for each justice, more travel protection, 25 additional officers at the Supreme Court building and four administrative positions. Another $2 million would establish an off-site residential security office to coordinate assignments and improve emergency response times. The Court also wants $2.3 million for 12 cybersecurity specialists charged with strengthening critical systems and data safeguards. A separate $6.5 million request would pay for design work on an exterior visitor-screening facility. The judiciary says physical-security reviews concluded that screening should begin outside the main vestibules rather than after visitors enter the building. Combined, the two Supreme Court accounts reach roughly $228.4 million. The most revealing figure may be 84. That is the number of full-time positions attached to a single expansion of protective operations around nine justices, their residences and their families. Congress should examine every dollar. It should also recognize what kind of country needs six more agents assigned to each member of its highest court. The Associated Press documented 564 threats against federal judges during the last government fiscal year, an increase from the year before. That total covers judges across the federal system, though the danger has repeatedly reached the Supreme Court. Police responded to a fake 911 call targeting Barrett’s home in May. Her sister faced a bomb threat last year, and officers found no explosive after searching the property. In 2022, authorities arrested an armed man near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Maryland home after prosecutors said he traveled there intending to kill the justice. The suspect carried a gun, ammunition, zip ties and other equipment. Chief Justice John Roberts has warned that fierce criticism of judicial opinions is part of American life while personal hostility directed at judges creates a different and dangerous problem. The line between argument and intimidation has grown far too thin. A judgment can be condemned. A justice can be criticized. Congress can change a statute, voters can change Congress, and future litigants can bring the next case. A threat at a family home belongs to none of those constitutional remedies. C-SPAN carried the House testimony live: U.S. Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett testify before @HouseAppropsGOP @AppropsDems– LIVE online here: https://t.co/LxPfbUfQ9m — CSPAN (@cspan) July 14, 2026 The Senate Appropriations Committee scheduled Barrett and Kagan for a second hearing at 2 p.m. Eastern in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Senator Bill Hagerty is set to preside over that session. Two hearings in one day make clear that this was more than a ceremonial visit. The justices came to defend a funding request before both chambers that control the federal purse. That arrangement gives lawmakers a legitimate oversight role. They can demand clear staffing plans, measurable security improvements and honest accounting for a request that asks taxpayers to spend millions more. The power of the purse also carries a duty. Physical protection for judges cannot become a bargaining chip used to reward favored opinions or punish rulings that infuriate one party. The pairing of Barrett and Kagan sends its own message. One justice may write the majority while the other writes the dissent. The next case can reverse those positions. Political rage rarely pauses to check the fine print. Americans have every right to scrutinize the Supreme Court, challenge its reasoning and demand integrity from its members. A lifetime appointment does not place anyone beyond criticism. The American answer to a bad judgment is a better argument, a new law, an election, a constitutional amendment or another case. It can never be a bomb threat, a swatting call or an armed man outside a justice’s home. That is the warning two very different Supreme Court justices carried into Congress on Tuesday. Congress should hear it. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post BREAKING: Two Supreme Court Justices Make RARE Appearance Before Congress appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.