Hagerty Leads Historic Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing to Review the Supreme Court’s Budget Request

WASHINGTON-On Tuesday, United States Senator Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government (FSGG), led the Subcommittee's third and final hearing for Fiscal Year 2027. Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett-the first sitting justices to appear before the committee in 24 years-testified in support of the U.S. Supreme Court's budget request.

*Click the photo above or click here to watch*

Remarks as prepared for delivery:

"Good afternoon. The hearing will come to order. Before we begin, I would like to take a brief moment to remember our late colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham. He was a true American Statesman.

What I remember most is that, while he was incredibly serious, he had unparalleled talent in bringing levity to any situation. I think Justice Kagan, it was during your confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, that one of his questions brought genuine laughter to the whole room.

We will miss Senator Graham dearly. His family, friends, and staff members remain in my prayers.

Turning to the matter at hand, this is the third and final hearing of the Fiscal Year 2027 cycle for the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.

First, I'd like to welcome our distinguished witnesses, Justice Kagan and Justice Barrett of the United States Supreme Court. It's been fifteen years since Supreme Court Justices testified before the Senate, so I want to thank you both for being here today.

The work of the Supreme Court is of paramount importance, and I look forward to hearing from you about the resources the Court needs to do that work. Unlike federal departments, the Supreme Court is not a creature of Congress, but of the Constitution itself, equal in dignity to the Congress and the President. And unlike the legislative and executive powers, the Founders crafted the judicial power to be independent from the political branches.

That independent judicial authority-characterized, in Alexander Hamilton's words, by "neither force nor will, but merely judgment"-is "the best expedient … to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws." It is crucial that we respect that independence, which is embedded in the separation of powers that forms the backbone of American government.

The Judicial Branch is not wholly insulated from Congress, however. Congress's power of the purse imparts not only the authority, but the responsibility, to fund every part of the government including the Supreme Court. It is therefore important for our branches to work together to ensure the Court has the resources it needs to perform its constitutional duties.

With these facts in mind, I want to be clear that this hearing is about the Supreme Court's fiscal, operational, and security needs, and will be conducted in light of the Court's unique relationship to Congress. This hearing is not a forum for discussion about the merits of specific cases-past, present, or future-or about when Justices should recuse from cases.

I encourage my colleagues to focus their questions accordingly. And as a reminder, each Senator will have 1 round of 8 minutes to ask their questions. I also expect that our guests today will maintain order in the hearing room so we can conclude our business with efficiency and civility. We will have no tolerance for interruptions today. Any demonstration or disorderly conduct will result in prompt removal.

The Supreme Court's budget request for Fiscal Year 2027 seeks $207 million in discretionary funding. This amount is a $13.9 million-or 7.2 percent-increase over the total amount of discretionary funding provided to the Supreme Court for Fiscal Year 2026.

The requested increase is driven by an increasingly dangerous threat environment, and the recognition that more resources are needed to counteract this concerning reality. There is no denying that we are experiencing a disturbing level of violence against those who serve in the highest levels of government.

President Trump has now survived three assassination attempts in the last two years. Yesterday was the second anniversary of the attempted assassination in Butler, Pennsylvania, where the assassin's bullet drew blood. But for a millimeter, President Trump would have been killed. Tragically, one American was killed, and two more were critically injured.

That's hardly the only instance. Our colleague Rand Paul suffered a felonious assault. Someone tried to firebomb Governor Josh Shapiro's home. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise narrowly survived an assassination attempt, as more congressmen stood in the line of fire.

Of course, political violence is not solely directed to elected officials, as we recently saw with the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk.

And-particularly relevant for today's hearing-the Supreme Court has not escaped this dark trend of politically motivated violence.

Following the 2022 leak of the Dobbs draft opinion, a man intent on preserving Roe tried to kill Justice Kavanaugh at his home, bringing with him a gun, a knife, pepper spray, zip ties, lock-picking tools, and duct tape.

Separately, Justice Alito's staff opened an envelope to find a white powdery substance inside-ultimately harmless but intended to terrorize Court personnel and obstruct Court operations.

We also observed hundreds of demonstrators gathering outside the Justices' homes, attempting to intimidate and influence them, in apparent violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1507 yet without a single arrest by Biden's Department of Justice. Justice Barrett was the target of a "swatting" attack intended to create an environment for potential injury to her and others.

These disturbing incidences force us to confront the reality that the physical security of each member of the Supreme Court is a matter of constitutional consequence.

Though maintaining operational security might require obscuring some details, I am hopeful that the Justices' testimony today will help us understand some of these threats.

Accompanying the rise in physical threats is a rise in cyber threats. In January, a man pleaded guilty to hacking the Supreme Court's electronic filing system at least 25 times. We have also observed a surge in cyber threats directed towards the lower courts.

It is not hyperbole to say that attacks of this nature can be a matter of life and death. Sealed court documents can include information about confidential informants and classified national security information, not to mention social security numbers, sensitive medical records, and trade secrets essential to our economic dominance.

The risk of insecure and unreliable electronic court records is not a risk we can accept. To defend against these threats and avoid the proliferation of attacks currently facing the lower courts, the Supreme Court's budget seeks a modest program increase to enhance its cybersecurity personnel.

Thank you for appearing before this Subcommittee, Justice Kagan and Justice Barrett. It is an honor to have you before us today and I look forward to your testimony."

###