After the leak of the draft decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, protests erupted outside the homes of Supreme Court justices. In response, the Supreme Court sought increased security measures and enlisted the U.S. Marshals to provide personal details for the justices. However, a year later, there has been no significant increase in threats or attacks against the justices. Despite this, the Supreme Court is requesting to continue and even augment the high level of security.
Protests outside the homes of conservative justices following the Dobbs decision, which effectively eliminated reproductive rights for millions, were quickly labeled as illegal by top Republicans. They argued that these protests were an attempt to influence a judge, which is a crime. Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland urging him to publicly commit to protecting the justices and prosecute anyone seeking to threaten and intimidate the Court into changing its decision.
In response to Grassley’s letter, the Justice Department dispatched the U.S. Marshals Service to augment the Supreme Court’s security details. Congress passed the Supreme Court Police Parity Act, extending security to Supreme Court justices’ immediate family members. However, apart from one incident where an armed man traveled to Washington claiming intent to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, there have been no acts of violence attempted or committed against the justices. No protesters were arrested.
Despite the lack of violence or significant threats, the Supreme Court has continued to increase its security measures. The Court expanded its security detail to include 400 U.S. Marshals through the SCOTUS Special Security Officer Program, more than doubling the number of officers assigned to the security of the justices and their residences. The Marshals’ annual report to Congress revealed that they provided 24-hour online threat screening coverage for the Supreme Court and real-time online research into suspected threats at justices’ homes.
The Supreme Court has requested an additional $21 million for 46 new positions, including 42 more Marshals, to bolster security for judges in the next fiscal year. The Court specifically cited overturning Roe v. Wade as fueling the need for increased security. However, the threats used to justify these security measures are not detailed by either the Supreme Court police force or the U.S. Marshals. Publicly available assessments show a decrease in threats against the judiciary.
While there have been instances of vandalism directed at churches and anti-abortion facilities after the Dobbs ruling, violence has largely been directed at property rather than causing serious bodily injury. Experts say they are not aware of any serious bodily injury caused by pro-choice activists. Even in the case of the man who traveled from California with a plan to attack Kavanaugh, security did not intervene; he called the police and turned himself in.
Not all members of Congress intended their bill to be a blank check for the Supreme Court’s security. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., questioned Attorney General Garland about the Marshals’ protective detail in a Senate hearing, asking if it would continue indefinitely. Garland responded that they were hoping it wouldn’t go on long term.
In conclusion, despite no significant increase in threats or attacks against Supreme Court justices, the Court is seeking to continue and augment its high level of security. The justification for these security measures is not detailed, and publicly available assessments show a decrease in threats against the judiciary. It remains to be seen whether these measures will continue indefinitely or if there will be a reassessment of the need for such extensive security.