For the first time in seven years, the United States Supreme Court will send two of its justices—Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan—to Capitol Hill for a rare public hearing on the court’s budget. Their scheduled testimony before the House and Senate Appropriations Financial Services and General Government subcommittees on July 14, 2026, is set to reignite debate around the Supreme Court’s spending, transparency, and security needs, according to public announcements made Tuesday by the panels.
The Supreme Court, which last saw its justices testify on budget matters in 2019, is now requesting more than $200 million for salaries and expenses for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2026. This marks a roughly 7% increase over the previous year, reflecting not only the rising cost of maintaining the historic Supreme Court building and its grounds but also new priorities: expanding security and bolstering cybersecurity staffing.
According to Bloomberg, the justices’ appearance is noteworthy both for its rarity and its context. The judiciary as a whole is seeking increased funding from Congress to address growing threats, and the Supreme Court is no exception. The court’s budget request includes additional funds to expand the Supreme Court Police, with a particular focus on protecting justices at their homes—a measure that has taken on new urgency since the attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh at his Maryland residence in 2022. That incident prompted the U.S. Marshals Service, under the Department of Justice, to begin providing 24/7 security at justices’ homes, but now the court is seeking to transition these responsibilities to its own police force.
Gabe Roth, executive director of the judiciary watchdog group Fix the Court, told reporters, “The justices ask for a significant—and precipitously growing—amount of money from taxpayers each year, and they should be required to justify that request annually before appropriators, just like any other part of government.” His comments highlight a persistent concern among lawmakers, advocacy groups, and court watchers: the Supreme Court’s need for greater transparency and accountability, not just in its budget but also in its internal workings and decision-making processes.
Calls for transparency have been simmering for years. Critics have urged the court to embrace cameras in the courtroom, provide more insight into its deliberations, and answer questions about its budget on a regular basis. The upcoming testimony by Justices Barrett and Kagan could offer a rare window into the court’s priorities and the challenges it faces in an era marked by heightened political tension and security threats.
Senate appropriators have not yet released their annual funding bill, which would determine the fate of the Supreme Court’s budget request. The justices’ testimony could play a pivotal role in shaping the debate, especially as Congress weighs competing demands for federal dollars. According to the House and Senate subcommittees, the hearing will focus on the court’s need for enhanced security, the transition of residential protection from the U.S. Marshals Service to the Supreme Court Police, and the creation of a dozen new cybersecurity positions to guard against digital threats.
Justice Barrett, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2020, and Justice Kagan, named to the court by President Barack Obama in 2010, bring distinct backgrounds to the hearing. Barrett, a former law professor turned appellate judge, is part of the court’s conservative majority. Kagan, once the dean of Harvard Law School and a former U.S. solicitor general, previously served as a White House domestic policy adviser during the Clinton administration—a role that included work on appropriations. Their joint appearance underscores the bipartisan nature of the court’s request and the seriousness with which it is being treated by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.
Historically, Supreme Court justices have rarely appeared before Congress. When they have, it’s typically been to discuss the annual budget. In 2019, Justices Kagan and Samuel Alito faced questions not only about funding but also about the need for a Supreme Court code of conduct—a topic that has continued to attract scrutiny. Chief Justice John Roberts notably declined a 2023 request to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about ethics concerns, particularly in the wake of revelations regarding Justice Clarence Thomas’s luxury travel.
The timing of Barrett and Kagan’s testimony is significant. The court has just concluded a contentious term, marked by decisions that expanded presidential power and weakened a key section of the Voting Rights Act, often over the objections of the liberal bloc. Nearly a quarter of the court’s opinions were decided along ideological lines, intensifying public interest in how the court operates and the resources it requires.
Security, in particular, has emerged as a pressing concern. The attempted assassination of Justice Kavanaugh was a watershed moment, highlighting the dangers faced by members of the nation’s highest court. In response, the judiciary has moved to fortify protections for judges at all levels, but the Supreme Court’s request to expand its own police force signals a desire for more direct control over justices’ safety—both at the court and at their residences. The transition from reliance on the U.S. Marshals Service to the Supreme Court Police is a major shift, and lawmakers are expected to probe the justices on how this change will be managed and what additional resources will be needed.
Cybersecurity is another area where the court is seeking to ramp up its defenses. The budget request includes funding for a dozen new positions dedicated to protecting the court’s digital infrastructure. With cyber threats on the rise across all branches of government, the Supreme Court is not immune to the risks posed by hackers, state actors, and other malicious forces. Lawmakers are likely to ask how these new roles will be filled, what specific threats the court faces, and how the judiciary plans to stay ahead of evolving cyber risks.
While the court has not issued a public statement about Barrett and Kagan’s upcoming appearance, the move is being closely watched by legal observers and advocacy groups alike. Many see it as an opportunity for the justices to address concerns about the court’s opacity and to make the case for why increased funding is necessary in the current climate.
“The justices ask for a significant—and precipitously growing—amount of money from taxpayers each year, and they should be required to justify that request annually before appropriators, just like any other part of government,” Roth reiterated, encapsulating the sentiment driving the hearing.
As Congress prepares to scrutinize the Supreme Court’s budget, the stakes are high—not just for the court, but for the broader question of how America’s most powerful legal institution balances its need for security, transparency, and public trust. The outcome of the July 14 hearing could shape the court’s operations for years to come, setting precedents for future interactions between the judiciary and the legislative branch.
With public confidence in the Supreme Court wavering and high-profile cases continuing to draw national attention, all eyes will be on Justices Barrett and Kagan as they step into the congressional spotlight to defend the court’s budget and priorities.