00:00Thank you both, Justice Barrett, Justice Kagan, for being here today. We appreciate it.
00:06Like everyone, I really respect the separation of powers and the importance of an impartial
00:10and independent Supreme Court. So it is important for all of us on this committee to fulfill our
00:16responsibility to oversee taxpayer dollars. So I just want you to know I really appreciate both
00:21of you being here and participating in this hearing. I do have several questions for both
00:26of you about the court's budget and operations. But before I go to that, I do want to say I'm
00:31very troubled that the current president challenges and has challenged our system of checks and
00:37balances in very unprecedented ways. And the court has made some incredibly consequential
00:43decisions without any real process or explanation by relying on the shadow docket. And it's
00:50also unbelievably important to the functioning of our democracy that we have a well-functioning
00:56independent judiciary that is trusted by the people of this nation. That requires transparency
01:02and it requires the American people to be able to know you are calling balls and strikes and
01:08not making decisions based on any financial conflict of interest and what is behind those
01:13decisions. So I urge you to keep those issues in mind. And if either of you have any comments
01:19on that, particularly on the shadow hearings, I would appreciate it.
01:23Just kicking. Sure. You know, this is something that we, there are many facets to the shadow docket
01:34and we discuss them and debate them and sometimes disagree about them. You know, in recent years,
01:45we have increasingly received these requests to move fast and to move before a case winds its way through
01:56all the levels of review. Um, uh, and, um, you know, we have to decide what to do with those
02:04requests.
02:04Sometimes we, uh, we argue about the standards to be used. We argue about how those standards apply in
02:11particular cases. Um, sometimes Justice Barrett and I have agreed. Sometimes Justice Barrett and I have
02:17disagreed. Um, uh, I think what, um, for myself, what the court is, um, is doing better on but, uh,
02:28is not completely there on
02:29basis. Um, is, um, is, um, even when we feel as though, uh, uh, uh, uh, earlier decision is appropriate,
02:36um,
02:37finding ways to incorporate greater process into our decision of those cases. So have oral arguments, have more
02:45briefing, um, make sure to explain ourselves in our decisions, uh, more than we did at, um, you know, maybe
02:53a year or 18 months ago
02:54when this, when we first started being swamped, uh, with these applications. Um, uh, I think we can
03:02still, uh, uh, improve what we're doing. Um, uh, I think you're exactly right that transparency is
03:09important, uh, that people need to know, lower court judges need to know, litigants need to know, the public
03:15needs to do what it is that we're deciding and why. Um, uh, there are occasions where, um, emergency relief
03:24is
03:24absolutely appropriate. Um, and it's finding, uh, those occasions but no others that is the
03:30challenge of this. Okay. I appreciate that response and don't know if you have anything to add.
03:35Oh, I'll just add one thing. I think one of the challenges, you know, as, as we're trying to adapt
03:40and respond to, to the number and character of applications that we receive, I think one of the
03:45challenges is on our merits docket, we have a very well-established process for handling cases
03:50and each case is treated the exact same way, the same deadlines, the same briefing limits, oral
03:55argument, et cetera. And as Justice Kagan alluded to, it's a little bit different with these emergency
04:00applications because I don't think any of us takes the position that we should have an opinion
04:05written for every one of them or oral argument for every one of them. So it's not quite the same
04:11one-size-fits-all process on the emergency docket that we have on the merits docket. And so I think
04:16what
04:16we're working on now is figuring out which ones do warrant that more process, the oral argument,
04:22more briefing, and which ones should be handled in-house, which ones warrant more explanation,
04:27which ones really should be just in order. And I think that has been something that we're just
04:32working through. Well, I, I encourage you strongly to work through that and make it clear. I think,
04:37especially at this time, whether it comes to trust or transparency or truthfulness, the public needs
04:43to know. And I think you need to recognize that this is a serious question that many of our constituents
04:48have. So, uh, please continue your work and, and, uh, reach a goal that I think everybody would support
04:55you on. So thank you. Um, now on your budget request, uh, this committee does take security
05:01threats facing the Supreme Court and everyone who signed up to serve the public extremely seriously.
05:06That's exactly why Congress provided $58 million in additional security funding in FY 26 to address
05:14some of these increased, um, threats and vulnerabilities. Unfortunately, however, the
05:18court made a request for over half of this funding at the very last minute without any public
05:23explanation or justification of the need for that funding after we had already provided
05:28$28 million in the continuing resolution last fall. So I just want to ask both of you, will you commit
05:34to making public all relevant budget request documents in the future, including for any
05:40unanticipated supplemental funding needs? Um, absolutely. We want to be transparent and,
05:47you know, justice Kagan had apologized to ranking member read on the court's behalf. If we did
05:52anything that was suboptimal and are seeking of those funds, you know, uh, they were in response.
05:59We made those requests in response to unexpected, uh, unexpected needs like the premature. We didn't
06:05expect the marshals to stop, drop residential security as quickly as they did. And they told
06:10us that they were going to end at six months before we anticipated it. That was one of the
06:14big, um, line item reasons for seeking that extra money. So it's my understanding that our staff
06:20was transparent with the committee about what the money was being spent on. But, you know, absolutely,
06:25you know, we, we want to cooperate and we recognize your important role. Okay. I think that's really
06:30important for you to understand and make sure that we have that documentation. We're, we are, uh, our
06:35constituents require us to be very transparent about where their tax dollars go and we need that
06:40budget information from you. Um, and we want to make sure the court has first rate security. Um, but we
06:47do have very little information about how you are actually building this type of security capacity
06:52that you need. So standing up your own police and residential security is not an easy task.
06:58How long do you think it will take to fully be fully staffed and operational? And secondly, what
07:04expertise are you relying on to make sure your security personnel have the facilities and the
07:09training and the capacity they need? Uh, what we think we have a goal of, uh, 477, uh, police
07:17officers. We're a ways away from that right now. Um, if we include, um, people we get through
07:24contracting, we can probably do it within a couple of years, but in, in order to have our
07:30own, uh, uh, employees get up to that mark, then we're probably talking more like six years,
07:37um, you know, into the 2030s. Um, um, and, uh, you know, as, as to, uh, what kind of training
07:47is being used, I think we're going to have to get, unless Justice Barrett knows more than
07:52I do, I think we're going to have to provide you with further information about that. Um,
07:57you know, I'm confident that the kind of training programs that we've put in place are, are good
08:03ones, but I can't give you a whole lot of detail about that. Okay. That is something
08:08that we need to have in order to provide the budget for you. So we would appreciate that
08:12back. Um, and finally, I just have a few seconds left. I, I heard Senator Coons, when I come
08:17in and talk about code of ethics, and I just want to reiterate that, um, as my colleagues
08:23have pointed out, uh, that code is self-enforced and it is a weaker code, code of conduct than
08:29one. All the lower courts have been held to, um, for example, it essentially allows justices
08:35to decide for themselves whether or not they are engaging in a political activity or accepting
08:40inappropriate gifts. I know you've been asked at this both in the house and a number of
08:44people here have mentioned it, but I want to add my name and voice to the fact that we
08:48need and our constituents need, um, to know that you have a code of ethics, that it is, you
08:53are held to high standards because that again is about transparency and it is about, uh, returning
08:59um, confidence to the court decisions that are being made. So I appreciate it. Thank
09:04you. Thank you so much. Subscribe to One India and never miss an update. Download the One India
09:13app now.
Comments