Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett detailed a recent swatting incident while testifying before Congress on Tuesday, explaining how her family has been the victim of repeated threats and intimidation tactics. It should have been a watershed moment, especially given that several justices were the targets of a bombing just months ago.
Instead, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., used her time to question the justices about alleged bribery despite the obviously more important and glaring issue before them, that is, violence toward the justices and the conservative justices in particular.
Barrett was appearing before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government alongside fellow Justice Elena Kagan. Kagan first noted the need for additional security resources for the justices in recent years before Barrett shared her own personal experience that necessitates enhanced security measures.
Barrett began by discussing how her security team sent her home with a bulletproof vest around the time of the Dobbs leak. The conservative Supreme Court justices faced a series of threats after the Dobbs decision — which overturned Roe v. Wade — was leaked. Notably, fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh was nearly murdered due to the leak when a mentally ill man who now identifies as a female showed up to Kavanaugh’s home with a Glock 17 pistol, ammunition, lock picks, duct tape, pepper spray, and other burglary items. The leftist activist group Ruth Sent Us and Vigil for Democracy had created maps of so-called “extremist justices” that doxxed Justices Barrett, Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts.
Barrett also confirmed a recent swatting attempt at her home during her testimony.
“Six weeks ago, I was the victim of a swatting incident. At that point, my teenage son … opened the door to go out with friends and saw in our street, it was full of police cars who had responded to a false report of gun shots and raised voices in my home,” Barrett testified. Barrett said she was “grateful” that Supreme Court police were present at her home and had been able to explain to authorities that it was “a false alarm, and so the police did not actually attempt to enter our home.”
“Many of us, me included, have received threatening anonymous deliveries designed to intimidate and harass us,” she continued.
Notably, a man was arrested on bomb charges this past fall after he showed up to a Mass traditionally attended by Supreme Court justices while strapped with a Molotov cocktail.
But rather than continue the important discussion about the growing threats against the courts and justices, DeLauro thought it was more important to discuss ethics rules and argue that justices are improperly permitted to accept gifts.
“As members of Congress, we follow very strict gift and ethics rules. We’re not allowed to accept any gift if it’s over $50 at one time, and there’s a total value is more than $100 in the calendar year from any individual,” DeLauro said. “There are exceptions and an entire committee — we have an ethics committee — that decides whether a trip or a gift is allowed. But as justices of the Supreme Court, you can and do accept these gifts without any committee or without hesitation. Or maybe there’s hesitation, but in any case you can accept these gifts. The Supreme Court does not have a gift ban or a binding code of ethics. I know in 2023, a voluntary code of ethics was adopted, but it is entirely self-policing without any mechanism for enforcement.”
“Is this a time to make this a requirement instead of a suggestion?” DeLauro asked, as if the hearing “time” was best used to make an ethics requirement rather than addressing violent threats.
Barrett pointed out that the court does in fact adhere to “the restrictions of the judicial conference of the United States” and added that “there are restrictions” on the justices’ “ability” to receive any gifts. She also noted that justices have a contribution limit as well and must make disclosures similar to those required for members of Congress.
Barrett’s testimony was yet another reminder that the threats against the Supreme Court justices — and in particular, the conservative justices — are real. They have faced years of assassination attempts and threats and other forms of intimidation. Yet for some reason, after hearing these concerns, DeLauro’s “concern” was about alleged bribery and insinuations that some of the justices are accepting improper gifts.
