Sen. Collins Questions Justices Kagan and Barrett on Supreme Court Budget

Q&A on Residential Security Funding Request

Click HERE to watch and HERE to download.

Q&A on Exterior Screening Facility for Supreme Court Building

Click HERE to watch and HERE < /a>to download.

Q& A on Contested Climate Change Chapter in the New Federal Judicial Center Reference Manual

Washington, D.C. - At a hearing to review the 2027 budget request for the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), U.S. Senator Susan Collins, Chair of the Appropriations Committee, questioned Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett on the Court's response to a heightened threat environment, residential security funding for Justices, and screening facility funding for the Supreme Court building.

Q&A on Residential Security Funding Request

Sen. Collins : First of all, let me welcome our distinguished witnesses today. It's a great honor to have you here to respond to our questions. I could not help but think as I heard Justice Kagan's comments about the 38 percent increase in the number of threats that 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.

For example, a Senator stood in front of the Supreme Court building and called out two members by name, saying that they had released the whirlwind and that they will pay the price. Other public officials have called the Court corrupt, out of control, and serving an extremist agenda. This overheated language, this completely inappropriate rhetoric against the Supreme Court, endangers the lives of the justices and erodes public trust in our system of government. I believe that all of us must avoid that kind of dangerous and disturbing rhetoric because it could, in fact, trigger violence.

So, with that as an introduction, let me turn to some specific questions for you. Justice Barrett, the Supreme Court is taking over residential security for the justices from the U.S. Marshals Service. What was the rationale for that change?

Justice Barrett : Thank you, Chair Collins. The marshals was always designed to be temporary. They couldn't continue to staff us. In fact, one reason for our supplemental request that was somewhat unexpected is that the marshals unexpectedly told us that they would not be able to continue providing the residential protection and that they were going to end it quicker than we had anticipated.

They themselves were just stretched thin, so we had always wanted to take it over ourselves, but we were forced to do that on a quicker timeline, and we are now fully doing it within the Supreme Court Police through a combination of our full-time officers and contractors.

Q&A on Exterior Screening Facility for Supreme Court Building

Sen. Collins: Justice Kagan, in the Supreme Court's building and grounds account, there is a request for $6.5 million to begin the process for an exterior screening facility for visitors to the court. Could you explain why the court needs that separate facility?

Justice Kagan: Yes, right now, visitors walk into the court, and that's where they're checked. That's where they are sent through the magnetometer, and you know, checked for weapons and so forth. And just as the Capitol decided that, for security reasons, it wished to create a visitors center that was off the main premises, so, although all the appropriate security checks could be done off premises, that's what we're looking into as well.

Q&A on the Contested Climate Change Chapter in the Federal Judicial Center Reference Manual

Sen. Collins: Justice Kagan, as you know, the Federal Judicial Center publishes a reference manual for federal judges to use when handling cases that involve scientific evidence. The center, whose board is chaired by the Chief Justice, published its latest version of the manual on December 31st of last year.

I understand that you wrote the foreword to this edition. I am aware of concerns that this version included a chapter that, in the judgment of some people, disfavored a particular class of litigants by suggesting that contested issues were not, in fact, contested. Are you aware of this controversy?

Justice Kagan: I have become aware of it. As you say, I wrote the foreword. The foreword is just a page-long thing that the Federal Judicial Center asked me to provide, as other justices have provided for other editions of the book. So, I hadn't read the chapter in question prior to that time. Actually, I still haven't read it, but I know that the controversy that you're referring to, which is about the climate science chapter and whether there were statements made within that chapter treating as uncontested things that many people continue to contest, and the head of the Federal Judicial Center, Judge Rosenberg, has engaged with the people who have made those criticisms and those objections.

In the end, the Federal Judicial Center has withdrawn that chapter from the book on the view that anything that gets so many people riled up, and anything that so many people think, wow, that was way too hasty, there's still lots of disagreement about things that you presented as entirely agreed upon, should not be in a book of this kind. The entire purpose of this book really is not to take positions on contested and contestable matters. It's to help judges, assist judges, with respect to scientific issues, but not with any kind of slant either way. And because so many people did think that that chapter was slanted in a particular direction, Judge Rosenberg decided to take it out of the book. I know that she is engaged with members of Congress about her decision, about what to do next, about how to make sure that the processes that the federal judicial center uses are good ones, and that a situation like this does not come up again.

The Federal Judicial Center is a generally terrific organization, and that's why you know I was glad when they asked me, like write a few paragraphs introducing the book. This is a book that's existed for 30 years and has, in different editions, and has assisted countless numbers of judges during that time, so I was glad to do that, and I think that Judge Rosenberg's hope is that things will be learned from this experience, and that the Federal Judicial Center won't ever find itself in this position again.

###