最高法院大法官敦促国会增加安保经费:“威胁已迫在眉睫”


2026年7月14日 / 美国东部时间下午3:33 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻

华盛顿讯——最高法院大法官埃琳娜·卡根和艾米·科尼·巴雷特周二敦促国会提供额外资金,以加强对大法官的保护。近期针对他们的威胁有所上升,卡根警告称,部分大法官“面临的威胁已迫在眉睫”。

卡根和巴雷特罕见地接连在众议院和参议院小组委员会作证,就最高法院下一财年(10月1日起)的预算申请进行说明。此次作证距最高法院结束本届任期的裁决仅数周,本届任期内法院就移民、投票权、行政权力以及特朗普总统限制出生公民权的举措作出了多项重磅判决。

根据预算文件,最高法院向国会拨款委员会申请超过2.28亿美元的经费,较此前增加逾2000万美元。其中部分资金将用于最高法院警察为大法官增加安保力量,每位大法官可额外配备6名安保人员,金额达1460万美元。这笔资金还将用于大法官在华盛顿特区以外地区的出行安保。

巴雷特和卡根表示,目前每位大法官的安保团队配备4至8名警员,但如果某位大法官面临特定威胁或需参与更多公开活动,安保人数可能会增加。

卡根告诉议员们,由于最高法院内部的警察部队已从美国法警局手中接管了大法官的住宅安保工作,近年来法院预算的增加“几乎全部”用于安保开支。

“对我们中的一些人而言,这些威胁已迫在眉睫,我们所有人也都清楚,威胁可能再次出现,”她说,“但正如首席大法官所言,法院所有成员仍会依法履职,毫无畏惧和偏袒地审理案件。”

2026年7月14日,最高法院大法官埃琳娜·卡根和艾米·科尼·巴雷特在华盛顿众议院小组委员会作证。肯特·西岛 / 法新社/盖蒂图片社

卡根表示,最高法院警察部门预计2026年针对大法官的威胁将增加38%。美国法警局数据显示,2025财年联邦法官遭遇的“重大安保事件”数量上升了57%。截至7月1日,本财年已有370起针对法官的威胁事件,法警局共开展了512起调查。法警局称,上一财年针对法官的威胁总计达564起。

“如今担任最高法院大法官愈发危险,更令人愤慨的是,两党部分公职人员本应更清楚不该对司法机构尤其是最高法院发起人身和政治攻击,”参议院拨款委员会主席、缅因州共和党参议员苏珊·柯林斯说道。

她提及了参议院少数党领袖查克·舒默2020年的言论,当时他针对大法官尼尔·戈萨奇和布雷特·卡瓦诺称:“你们引发了这场风暴,必将付出代价。”特朗普总统也曾多次对最高法院大法官发起尖锐的人身攻击,尤其是在最高法院否决了他最全面的关税政策之后。特朗普称戈萨奇和巴雷特作为多数派成员“是家人的耻辱”。他还抨击部分大法官“软弱、愚蠢、差劲”,称他们是“共和党温和派和激进左翼民主党人的傻瓜和跟班”。

“无论这些言论来自何处,无论出自哪位政治人物,无论属于哪个党派,这些言论都毫无益处,”卡根说,“它们危及个别大法官的人身安全,也不符合对待平等政府部门的恰当方式。”

她表示,对法院裁决的批评“是合理的”,但警告称:“恐吓则完全是另一回事。当任何党派的政治人物试图恐吓法官和大法官,迫使他们做出符合自己喜好的裁决而非其他选择时,我们就真正越过了红线。”

近年来,在职法官和最高法院大法官一直面临大量威胁。哥伦比亚广播公司新闻的分析显示,2025年共有126起由威胁通讯引发的起诉案件,其中12起针对法官的恐吓信息相关案件。

2022年5月最高法院推翻罗伊诉韦德案的意见书草稿泄露后,抗议者聚集在包括巴雷特在内的多位保守派大法官的住宅外。同年6月,一名来自加利福尼亚州的男子在卡瓦诺位于马里兰州的住宅外被捕,警方在其身上搜出手枪、刀具和工具。

检察官称,这名被告企图杀害三名最高法院大法官,并曾调查他们的家庭住址。该男子本名尼古拉斯·罗斯克,现名为索菲·罗斯克,于2025年4月承认企图杀害或绑架最高法院大法官,被判处八年以上监禁。

巴雷特单独向参众两院议员透露,在推翻罗伊诉韦德案的裁决泄露后,她收到了一件防弹背心,还不得不向当时12岁的儿子解释这件背心的用途。

“我从未想过履行这项公职会让我需要向孩子解释防弹背心是什么,以及为什么我必须穿上它,”她说。

这位大法官还表示,大约六周前她遭遇了“虚假报警骚扰”(swatting)事件。她十几岁的儿子打开家门,看到街上停着警车,接到了关于枪声和“高声争吵”的虚假报警。巴雷特说。

驻扎在她家外的最高法院警察与当地警方沟通后,确认这是一场“虚惊”,她说道。

“全国各地的联邦法官,包括最高法院的法官,都在毫无畏惧和偏袒地履行职责,但威胁等级确实很高,”她说。

巴雷特等多位法官还遭遇了“披萨人肉搜索”(pizza doxxing),即有人以他们的名义匿名向其家中寄送披萨。这些披萨使用的是丹尼尔·安德尔的名字,这名20岁男子是美国地区法官埃丝特·萨拉斯的儿子,2020年一名不满的律师在他们位于新泽西州的家中枪杀了丹尼尔·安德尔。

“这些行为旨在恐吓,或是在发送威胁者不喜欢某项裁决后进行报复,以此警告未来不要做出类似裁决,”巴雷特在对参议员谈及针对法官的威胁意图时说道,“尤其是那些以萨拉斯法官遇害儿子的名义寄送的匿名包裹,除了试图恐吓和影响裁决之外,很难有其他解释。”

2026年7月14日,最高法院大法官埃琳娜·卡根和艾米·科尼·巴雷特在华盛顿众议院小组委员会听证会上作证。肯特·西岛 / 法新社/盖蒂图片社

议员们似乎准备为最高法院加强安保提供资金支持。

众议院拨款委员会主席、俄亥俄州共和党众议员戴维·乔伊斯表示,司法官员“必须能够在不担心自身或家人安全的情况下履行职责”。

该委员会最高民主党议员、马里兰州众议员斯坦利·霍耶称:“国家深度分裂,针对法官的暴力言论日益增多,国会必须提供充足资金,确保所有司法人员的安全。”

除大法官住宅的安保经费外,最高法院还申请650万美元用于在法院大楼外设立访客安检设施,效仿美国国会大厦的游客中心。预算文件显示,约230万美元将用于网络安全。

大法官们在国会山作证申请法院运营预算期间,卡根和巴雷特还回应了关于最高法院2023年通过的行为准则、法院案件量以及临时诉讼程序(又称紧急或“影子案卷”)中临时救济申请的相关问题。

最高法院因其对影子案卷案件的处理方式受到审查,去年特朗普政府多次申请法院强制执行总统的第二任期政策,下级法院也在如何执行最高法院命令方面陷入困境。

但卡根表示,在过去一年左右的时间里,最高法院在处理这类申请和更详细地解释裁决方面“变得更有经验”。

“我们最好认识到,至少在某些情况下,需要更多信息,因此我们会发布意见书,有时还会附上多数意见和不同意见,”她对议员们说。

不过她承认,仍有改进空间。

卡根指出,最高法院在“重要案件中努力做得更好”,会征求更多意见书并举行口头辩论,例如近期关于特朗普试图解雇美联储理事会成员丽莎·库克的争议案件。最高法院就该案进行了口头辩论,并于上月裁定库克可以继续履职,同时其挑战被解职的诉讼将继续推进。

当威斯康星州民主党众议员马克·波坎问及影子案卷时,卡根表示,紧急申请数量增加可能是因为部分当事人在案件审理过程中成功获得了救济。

“人们看到我们至少有获得救济的可能性,那为什么不提交申请呢,”她说。

根据国会研究服务处2023年的一份报告,大法官在国会作证曾是常见做法。1960年至2011年间,大法官每年至少会在参众两院委员会面前作证一次。但近年来他们的参与度有所下降。

最高法院大法官——卡根和塞缪尔·阿利托——上一次在众议院作证是在2019年,当时的听证会围绕最高法院的预算申请展开。在职大法官——斯蒂芬·布雷耶和已故的安东宁·斯卡利亚——上一次在参议院作证是在2011年。

2023年,约翰·罗伯茨首席大法官曾被要求就最高法院的道德规则在国会山作证,但他拒绝了。罗伯茨当时对时任参议院司法委员会主席、伊利诺伊州民主党参议员迪克·德宾表示,首席大法官作证“极为罕见”,并援引了“三权分立担忧和维护司法独立的重要性”。

Supreme Court justices push Congress to boost security funding: “Threats have come very close”

July 14, 2026 / 3:33 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett urged Congress on Tuesday to provide additional funding to enhance protection for the justices as they face a rise in threats, with Kagan warning that the “threats have come very close” for some members of the high court.

Kagan and Barrett made rare back-to-back appearances before House and Senate subcommittees to testify about the Supreme Court’s budget request for the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. Their testimony came just weeks after the Supreme Court finished handing down decisions to wrap its latest term, which included blockbuster rulings on immigration, voting rights,executive power and President Trump’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship.

The Supreme Court is seeking more than $228 million from congressional appropriators, an increase of more than $20 million. Part of the court’s funding request includes an additional $14.6 million to expand security for the justices provided by the Supreme Court Police, which would allow for an additional six agents per member of the court, according to budget documents. The money would also be used for travel when the justices are outside of the Washington, D.C., region.

Each justice is currently assigned between four and eight officers as part of their security details, Barrett and Kagan said, but that may increase if a member of the court is facing a particular threat or is participating in more public events.

Kagan told lawmakers that the recent increases in the court’s budget have been “almost entirely” for security expenses, since the Supreme Court’s in-house police force took over residential security for the justices from the U.S. Marshals Service.

“For some of us, those threats have come very close, and all of us live with the knowledge that they may again materialize,” she said. “But as the chief justice has said, all members of the court continue to do their jobs as they believe legally right, adjudicating cases without fear or favor.”

Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett testify before a House subcommittee in Washington, D.C., on July 14, 2026. Kent NISHIMURA /AFP via Getty Images

The Supreme Court Police is anticipating a 38% increase in threats for 2026, Kagan said. For federal judges, there was a 57% rise in “security incidents of significant concern” in fiscal year 2025, according to the Marshals Service. As of July 1, there have been 370 threats to judges this fiscal year, and the Marshals have conducted 512 investigations, according to agency data. In the last fiscal year, there were 564 total threats to judges, the Marshals Service said.

“It is increasingly dangerous to be a Supreme Court justice these days, and it’s appalling to me that some of the rhetoric is coming from public officials on both sides of the aisle who should know better than to levy personal and political attacks against the judiciary and the court specifically,” Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who leads the Senate Appropriations Committee, said.

She cited comments from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in 2020, when he said of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, “you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.” Mr. Trump has also lobbed sharp personal attacks against Supreme Court justices, particularly after the high court struck down his most sweeping tariffs. The president said Gorsuch and Barrett, who were in the majority, are “an embarrassment to their families.” He has also attacked some of the justices as “weak, stupid, and bad,” and called them “fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats.”

“Wherever these come from, and whatever political figure says them, whatever party that political figure is a member of, these statements are really unhelpful,” Kagan said. “They’re dangerous in terms of individual justices’ security and they’re not appropriate in the way to treat a coordinate branch of government.”

She said criticism of the court’s rulings are “fair game,” but warned, “intimidation is a different thing entirely. And when political figures of any stripe are trying to intimidate judges and justices to do things that they like rather than the things that they don’t, that’s where we really have crossed the line.”

Sitting judges and members of the Supreme Court have been facing a barrage of threats in recent years. A CBS News analysis found there were 126 prosecutions in 2025 that stemmed from threatening communications and 12 of those cases arose from menacing messages directed at judges.

Following the May 2022 leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, protesters descended outside the homes of several conservative justices, including Barrett’s. That June, an individual from California was arrested outside of Kavanaugh’s Maryland residence with a handgun, knife and tools.

Prosecutors said the defendant aimed to kill three members of the Supreme Court and had researched their home addresses. The individual, who was arrested as Nicholas Roske but now goes by Sophie Roske, pleaded guilty in April 2025 to attempting to kill or kidnap a Supreme Court justice and was sentenced to more than eight years in prison.

Barrett separately told House and Senate members about being given a bulletproof vest following the leak of the decision reversing Roe v. Wade and having to answer questions from her then-12-year-old son about it.

“I didn’t expect that performing this service was going to put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was and why I had to wear one,” she said.

The justice also said that she was the victim of a “swatting” incident roughly six weeks ago. Her teenage son opened the door to their home and saw police cars on the street responding to a false report of gunshots and “raised voices,” Barrett said.

The Supreme Court Police, who were stationed outside her house, met with local police and explained it was a “false alarm,” she said.

“Federal judges across the country, throughout the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, continue to do their jobs without fear or favor, but the threat level is really high,” she said.

Several judges, including Barrett, have also been the victims of “pizza doxxing,” where they’ve received anonymous pizza deliveries to their homes, she said. The pizzas are sent in the name of Daniel Anderl, the 20-year-old son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas who was shot and killed at their New Jersey home by a disgruntled lawyer in 2020.

“They’re designed to intimidate or designed maybe to punish after decisions that the person sending the threat didn’t like, as a warning not to do it in the future,” Barrett told senators of how she views the intent of threats against judges. “It’s hard to interpret, particularly those anonymous deliveries that are sent in the name of Judge Salas’s murdered son, as anything other than an attempt to intimidate and influence decisions.”

Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett testify during a House subcommittee hearing in Washington, D.C., on July 14, 2026. Kent NISHIMURA /AFP via Getty Images

Lawmakers appeared ready to provide the resources for the Supreme Court to beef up its security.

Rep. David Joyce, an Ohio Republican who chairs the House subcommittee, said judicial officers “must be able to do their jobs without fear for their safety or their family’s safety.”

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the top Democrat on the panel, said, “With a deeply divided country and increasingly violent rhetoric being directed at judges, Congress must provide sufficient funding to ensure the safety of all judicial personnel.”

Beyond protection at the justices’ houses, the Supreme Court is also seeking $6.5 million for a facility to screen visitors to the high court outside of the building, similar to the Visitor Center at the U.S. Capitol. Roughly $2.3 million would go to cybersecurity, according to budget documents.

While the justices were on Capitol Hill to testify about the court’s requested operating budget, Kagan and Barrett fielded questions about the Supreme Court’s code of conduct, which it adopted in 2023, as well as the court’s caseload and requests for temporary relief made on its interim docket, also known as the emergency or “shadow” docket.

The high court has faced scrutiny for its handling of cases on its shadow docket, largely as it faced a slew of requests from the Trump administration last year to enforce the president’s second-term policies, and lower courts indicated they were struggling with how to apply the Supreme Court’s orders.

But Kagan said in the past year or so, the Supreme Court has “gotten more experienced” in handling those requests and providing a more thorough explanation of its decisions.

“We better recognize that at least sometimes, there is a need for additional information, and we have issued opinions and sometimes majority and dissenting opinions accordingly,” she told lawmakers.

Still, she acknowledged there are still improvements to be made.

Kagan noted that the Supreme Court has “tried to do better in important cases” by soliciting additional briefs and holding oral arguments, such as in the recent dispute over Mr. Trump’s attempt to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case and ruled last month that Cook can continue in her post while her lawsuit challenging her attempted removal moves forward.

Asked by Rep. Mark Pocan, a Democrat from Wisconsin, about the shadow docket, Kagan suggested the increase in emergency requests may be because some parties have had success in securing relief while their case proceeds.

“People see that there is at least a potential for us to grant relief, and so why not file a petition,” she said.

Congressional testimony by the justices used to be a common occurrence. Justices appeared before House and Senate panels at least once every year from 1960 through 2011, according to a 2023 report from the Congressional Research Service. But their participation has waned in recent years.

Members of the Supreme Court — Kagan and Justice Samuel Alito — last answered questions from the House in 2019 in a hearing that focused on the court’s budget request. And sitting justices — Justices Stephen Breyer and the late Justice Antonin Scalia — last testified at a Senate hearing in 2011.

While Chief Justice John Roberts was asked to testify on Capitol Hill about ethics rules governing the high court in 2023, he declined to do so. Roberts told Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, that testimony by the chief justice is “exceedingly rare” and cited “separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence.”

评论

发表回复

您的邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注