Order Code RL33464
Judicial Security: Responsibilities
and Current Issues
Updated July 9, 2007
Lorraine H. Tong
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division

---

Judicial Security: Responsibilities and Current Issues
Summary
The importance of judicial security was underscored by the murders of family
members of a Chicago federal judge on February 28, 2005, and the killings less than
two weeks later of a state judge, a court reporter, and a sheriff’s deputy in an Atlanta
courthouse. Shortly after these incidents, the House and the Senate held hearings and
legislation was introduced to (among other things) improve courtroom security for
judicial officers; safeguard judges and their families at home; restrict postings of
personal information about judicial officials and their families on the Internet; extend
or make permanent the authority to redact certain information from judicial officers,
judicial employees, and their families’ financial disclosure forms; and increase
penalties for attacks against them and other law enforcement personnel. Although
several judicial security bills were introduced in the House and Senate in the 109th
Congress, the security provisions enacted were in an appropriations act (P.L. 109-13),
which included funding for intrusion detection alarms in judges’ homes. Early in the
110th Congress, the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees
introduced H.R. 660 and S. 378, companion bills similar to the bills introduced in
the previous Congress. H.R. 660 was referred to three committees: Judiciary, Ways
and Means, and Oversight and Government Reform. On May 3, 2007, the House
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a hearing
on H.R. 660; and on June 13, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee amended H.R.
660 and ordered the bill reported. After a February 14, 2007, hearing on judicial
security and independence, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved S. 378 on
March 1, 2007, and reported the bill on March 29, 2007. On April 19, 2007, the
Senate passed S. 378 by a vote of 97-0. A third bill (H.R. 1130, the Judicial
Disclosure Responsibility Act), to extend the authority of the federal judiciary
through 2009 to redact certain personal information of judicial officers, judicial
employees, and their families from financial disclosure statements, was passed by
both the House and the Senate. The President signed H.R. 1130 into law (P.L. 110-
24) on May 3, 2007.
Both federal and state judicial entities have addressed judicial security concerns.
By statute, the United States Marshals Service (USMS) within the Department of
Justice has primary responsibility for the security of the judiciary. USMS works
closely with the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts (AOUSC), and the Federal Protective Service (FPS)
within the Department of Homeland Security. Concerns have been raised, however,
about the staffing of, and the communication and coordination between, these offices.
The Judicial Conference has, among other things, encouraged newly appointed
judges to provide personal information to USMS, and urged USMS to provide
additional training to marshals and inspectors. The National Center for the State
Courts (NCSC) issued a document intended to serve as a framework for state judicial
security, and has held two summits on court safety and security. Federal court
security funding is currently provided under two appropriations bills, one for the
judiciary and one for USMS. Among the related issues that may receive
congressional consideration or oversight are funding and staff resources,
communication and consultation, and federal/state collaboration. This report will be
updated upon passage of relevant legislation, or as other events warrant.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Judicial Security Responsibilities and Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Legislative Action in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
House Legislation and Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Senate Legislation and Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
FY2008 Judicial Security Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
House and Senate Subcommittee Appropriations Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Judicial Conference Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Actions by the National Center for the State Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Concluding Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix: Legislation in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Legislation Enacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
House Legislation and Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Senate Legislation and Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

---

Judicial Security: Responsibilities and
Current Issues
Introduction
Although the security of all federal buildings increased in the wake of the April
1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the importance of judicial security was brought
to the nation’s attention by reports of the murders of family members of a Chicago
federal judge on February 28, 2005,1 and the killings less than two weeks later of a
state judge, a court reporter, and a sheriff’s deputy in an Atlanta courthouse.2 In June
2006, a sniper shot a state judge in Reno, Nevada, through the window of the judge’s
office.3 Press accounts have also described other threats and violence directed at the
judiciary.4 Supreme Court Justices were also intended targets of violence. In March
2006, the public learned about death threats made against Supreme Court Justices in
2005.5 In November 2006, it was revealed that home-baked cookies infused with rat
poison had been mailed to all nine Justices in 2005; and, according to the media
report, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was quoted as saying that “each one contained
enough poison to kill the entire membership of the court.”6
In his 2005 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, issued on January 1,
2006, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., expressed concern about the murders in
Chicago and Atlanta:
These attacks underscored the need for all branches of government, state and
federal, to improve safety and security for judges and judicial employees, both
within and outside courthouses. We see emerging democracies around the world
struggle to establish court systems in which judges can apply the rule of law free
1 David Heinzmann and Jeff Coen, “Federal judge’s family killed; Husband, mother found
slain in basement,” Chicago Tribune, March 1, 2005, p. 1.
2 James Oliphant, “More Killings Raise Court Safety Fears,” Legal Times, March 14, 2005,
vol. 28, p. 1.
3 Scott Sonner, “Police Seek Suspect in Shooting of Nevada Judge, Later Slaying Across
Town,” The Associated Press, June 13, 2006 [http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=
1150115724481].
4 See, for example, Amanda Paulson and Patrik Jonsson, “How judges cope with everyday
threats on the job,” Christian Science Monitor, March 4, 2005, p. 1.
5 Bill Mears, “Justice Ginsburg details death threat,” CNN, March 15, 2006
[http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/15/scotus.threat/index.html].
6 Kevin Bohn, “O’Connor details half-baked attempt to kill Supreme Court,” CNN,
November 17, 2006 [http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/17/court.cookies/index.html].

---

CRS-2
from the threat of violence; we must take every step to ensure that our own
judges, to whom so much of the world looks as models of independence, never
face violent attack for carrying out their duties.7
U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales voiced similar sentiments when he
spoke at the Conference for Chief United States District Judges on April 14, 2005:
The Department of Justice and the Marshals Service will continue to
work to ensure that threats to federal judges are quickly assessed and
appropriate measures are taken. We will not accept that a judge is
intimidated or threatened in any way in discharging his or her
obligation to faithfully interpret the law. To that end, I have directed
a review of judicial security measures be undertaken so that the
Department, as well as state and local enforcement, can benefit from
a compilation of best practices from across the nation.8
During the 109th Congress, the House and Senate held hearings, and several
Members of Congress introduced legislation to (among other things) improve
security for judicial officers in the courtrooms; safeguard judges and their families
at home; restrict postings of personal information about judicial officials and their
families on the Internet; extend or make permanent the authority to redact certain
information from judges’ and their families’ financial disclosure forms; and increase
penalties for acts against court officials and other law enforcement personnel.9 The
bills were H.R. 1710, H.R. 1751, H.R. 4311, H.R. 4472, H.R. 4732, S. 1558, S. 1605,
S. 1968, and S. 3835. No final action was taken on these bills prior to the
adjournment of the 109th Congress, although legislation was enacted (H.R. 1268, P.L.
109-13) that included a provision to appropriate funds for intrusion detection alarms
in judges’ homes. Another bill, S. 2766, did not originally include court security
provisions, but such provisions were adopted by the Senate as an amendment.10
Early in the 110th Congress, the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary
Committees introduced companion judicial security bills similar to those that were
introduced, but not enacted, in the previous Congress. They are H.R. 660 and S.
378.11 Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, in remarks to
introduce S. 378, said that the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 is
a consensus measure with bipartisan support nearly identical to the bill we
passed in the Senate last December. House Judiciary Chairman Conyers is
7 See [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2005year-endreport.pdf] for the
text of the Chief Justice’s 2005 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary.
8 See [http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2005/agremarksccusdj.htm] for the text of the
attorney general’s speech.
9 See Appendix for details about legislation in the 109th Congress.
10 The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007, H.R. 5122, did
not contain similar court security provisions. Ultimately, the conference report was adopted,
and H.R. 5122 was signed into law without the court security provisions.
11 For a legal analysis of these two bills, see CRS Report RL33884, Court Security
Improvement Act of 2007: A Legal Analysis of H.R. 660/S. 378, by Charles Doyle.

---

CRS-3
introducing an identical measure in the House with bipartisan support. This bi-
cameral, bi-partisan introduction sends a strong message that we intend finally
to finish this difficult struggle and enact this bill that should have been enacted
months ago to increase protections for the dedicated women and men throughout
the Judiciary in this country. This is an important issue, and one I plan to make
a priority in this Congress.12
In addition, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., introduced
H.R. 1130, the Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act, to extend the authority
through 2009 to redact certain personal information of judicial officers, judicial
employees, and their families from financial disclosure statements.
This report discusses the current framework for federal judicial security,
legislative efforts in the 110th Congress13 to improve judicial security, other proposals
for reform, and the FY2008 budget request for judicial security.14
Judicial Security Responsibilities and Jurisdiction
As the Chief Justice suggested in his 2005 annual report, all three branches of
the federal government play unique roles in helping to ensure the safety of judges and
the security of the federal courts. In this joint effort, the role of Congress is to
authorize programs, appropriate funds, and provide oversight of judicial security.
The Judicial Conference of the United States15 — the principal policymaking body
of the federal judiciary — governs the administration of the U.S. courts. The Judicial
Conference’s Committee on Judicial Security monitors the security of the judiciary
(including protection of court facilities and proceedings, judicial officers, and court
staff at federal court facilities and other locations), and makes policy
recommendations to the conference. As the central support entity for the judicial
branch, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) implements Judicial
Conference policies, including security matters.
By statute,16 the United States Marshals Service (USMS) within the Department
of Justice (DOJ) has primary responsibility for the security of the judiciary, including
the safe conduct of court proceedings, and the security of federal judges and court
personnel at court facilities and off-site. USMS also provides protective details for
12 Sen. Patrick Leahy, “S. 378. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect
judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims, and their family members, and for other purposes,”
remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, January 24, 2007, p.
S1062.
13 For more information on judicial security bills in the 109th and 110th Congresses, see CRS
Report RL33473, Judicial Security: Comparison of Legislation in the 110th Congress, by
Nathan James.
14 See Appendix for details about judicial security legislation considered in the 109th
Congress.
15 The Chief Justice of the United States is the presiding officer of the Judicial Conference.
16 28 U.S.C. §566(a).

---

CRS-4
judges and others who are targets of threats and attacks, and provides other law
enforcement services for DOJ.17 Within USMS, the Judicial Security Division (JSD)
is specifically responsible for providing security services and staff support for the
federal judiciary, including personal protection for judges and physical security of
federal courthouses. According to USMS, over 2,000 sitting judges and other court
officials at more than 400 court facilities nationwide are under its protection.18 An
appointed U.S. marshal, confirmed by the Senate, has security responsibility in each
of the 94 federal judicial districts and the District of Columbia Superior Court.
District U.S. marshals provide and oversee security of the judiciary using USMS
resources and court security officers (CSO), who are employees of private security
companies under contract with USMS. Over 4,500 CSOs provide various types of
security (e.g., fixed posts, roving patrols, entry screening, and mail and packages
screening) in courthouses and at multi-tenant facilities.19 Also under USMS
jurisdiction is the design, installation, and maintenance of security systems, and
oversight of the communications equipment.
USMS conducts threat assessments when the threats are directed against
individuals (e.g., federal judges, U.S. attorneys, court staff, and family members),
then determines the level of security that is necessary for developing security plans
and assigning the required resources to ensure their safety. A deputy marshal is
required to attend any session of court at the request of the presiding judge.20 A
judicial security inspector (a senior-level deputy marshal) is assigned to each judicial
district to evaluate courthouse security and procedures, and to coordinate scheduling,
posting, and other matters related to CSOs. The inspectors also conduct security
surveys at judges’ homes and recommend improvements. To enhance its capability
to strengthen protection of the judiciary, on June 1, 2004, USMS established the
Office of Protective Intelligence (OPI) to review and analyze intelligence information
about the security of those under USMS protection. On a daily basis, OPI issues
security advisories, intelligence bulletins, and law enforcement alerts to USMS
district offices and senior staff at headquarters so that protective measures can be
17 For example, USMS is also responsible for (1) providing protection for witnesses who
testify for the government in cases involving organized crime and other significant criminal
activity, (2) transporting criminal defendants to and from court appearances, (3) arranging
for space in detention facilities to house pre-sentenced criminals, and (4) managing and
disposing of forfeited properties acquired by criminals through illegal activities. For more
information, see [http://www.usmarshals.gov/duties].
18 Other space in the court facilities under the control of USMS includes holding cells
adjacent to courtrooms, interview rooms used by attorneys and prisoners, cellblocks,
prisoner elevators, and office space for USMS use.
19 According to USMS, CSOs must pass a comprehensive screening process to ensure they
meet specific background, physical, medical, and weapons qualification standards. Many
have law enforcement experience.
20 As federal law enforcement officers, deputy marshals have other responsibilities,
including criminal investigations, fugitive apprehension, witness protection, prisoner
transportation, and executing court orders.

---

CRS-5
taken.21 When threats are made, USMS works with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI).22
The USMS Judicial Security Division highlighted the following services it
provided the judiciary during FY2006:
!
Coordinated and provided 259 protective details (outside of
courthouses) to U.S. Supreme Court Justices, judges, or other
members of the judicial system;
!
Provided security services during nearly 200 judicial conferences
and other significant gatherings of members of the federal
judiciary;
!
Coordinated and provided personnel and additional security
resources for 135 high-threat trials as well as 11 terrorist trials;
!
Provided improved Protective Investigations Training for 190
Deputy U.S. Marshals and Judicial Security Inspectors at the
agency’s Training Academy in Glynco, Georgia. Coordinated a
special Judicial Protective Training Conference in Baltimore for
210 additional personnel. All of these seminars were conducted by
experts from the Marshals Service, Secret Service, U.S. Attorney’s
Office, Diplomatic Security Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
!
Announced plans for a new National Center for Judicial Security
(NCJS). It will be operated, staffed and managed by the Judicial
Security Division and will provide a wide range of services and
support to federal, state, local, and international jurisdictions
whenever they seek advice and help with judicial security. 23
The Federal Protective Service (FPS) within the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) has overall responsibility for security in General Services
Administration (GSA)-managed, multi-tenant federal buildings.24 When those
buildings include court facilities, USMS and FPS share security responsibilities,25
21 Office of Congressional Affairs, USMS, telephone conversation with author, May 31,
2006.
22 USMS conducts investigations related to the protective actions, and the FBI has
responsibility for investigating threats for prosecutorial purposes.
23 U.S. Dept. of Justice, United States Marshals Service, “Fact Sheet: Judicial Security,”
USMS Pub. No. 21-D, Revised February 20, 2007 (Washington, 2007), pp. 1-2. Available
at [http://www.usmarshals.gov/duties/factsheets/judicial.pdf].
24 FPS was transferred from GSA to the DHS pursuant to the act to establish the Department
of Homeland Security, P.L. 107-296 (6 U.S.C. 203, Sec. 403).
25 A 75% judicial occupancy rule was developed to help define what constitutes a primary
courthouse versus a multi-tenant facility housing federal court operations. Under this rule,
a primary courthouse has one or more judges in residence, and at least one courtroom where
(continued...)

---

CRS-6
authorized by a series of memoranda of agreement (MOA) between GSA and DOJ.26
When the court is the sole tenant in a GSA-managed building, USMS has primary
responsibility for security, although FPS may provide some support for the perimeter
security, or may delegate that responsibility to USMS. How the responsibilities are
shared varies on a case-by-case basis depending on the differing requirements of
tenants, functions, and locations of occupied space. These shared responsibilities and
jurisdictions at individual court-occupied buildings are further determined by
agreement (sometimes in writing), and coordinated to avoid duplication. Generally,
USMS is responsible for and controls judicial space and access to it, while FPS is
primarily responsible for perimeter security and for other interior space that is not
court-related space. FPS conducts risk assessment of multi-tenant buildings to deter
threats and take countermeasures. Uniformed FPS officers and hired contract guards
(similar to CSOs) protect the buildings, their assets, and investigate crime at the
facilities. Other than perimeter responsibilities, FPS duties may include visitor entry
processing, roving patrols, garage access control, and mail and package screening.27
To protect the judiciary, the principal entities communicate and coordinate at
the national and district levels. At the national level, the Judicial Conference’s
Committee on Judicial Security coordinates security issues involving the federal
courts with USMS, DOJ, and DHS. According to USMS, the Marshals Service
works with AOUSC Office of Court Security and the Office of Facilities and Security
on a daily basis, and the Committee on Judicial Security also consults and
coordinates over national and district-level security matters. At semi-annual
25 (...continued)
the court and court-related activities occupy 75% or more of the rentable square footage.
26 A 1997 MOA between the GSA, USMS, and AOUSC defined each agency’s area of
responsibility for judicial security. According to the MOA, the three parties recognize that
a cooperative effort is needed to provide the federal courts with the necessary security. This
MOA stated, “The requirements of this joint effort are delineated in the March, 1982,
‘Report of the Attorney General’s Task Force on Security’; the March 1982, ‘Joint
Statement of the Chief Justice and the Attorney General before the Judicial Conference of
the United States’; the December 1982, Delegation of Procurement Authority from GSA to
the Department of Justice (DOJ); the June 1995, DOJ report entitled ‘Vulnerability
Assessment of Federal Facilities’; and the 1997 Delegation of Authority from GSA to DOJ
delegating USMS authority to determine and provide the appropriate level of perimeter
access control at all GSA-controlled facilities that house a judicial officer.” When FPS was
transferred from GSA to DHS in 2003, the MOA was reaffirmed by a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) which stated that the terms of the 1997 MOA would continue
without interruption with DHS assuming the responsibilities transferred from GSA. Parties
to the MOU were DOJ, DHS, and AOUSC (signed by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft
on November 20, 2003, then-director of AOUSC Leonidas R. Mecham on November 21,
2003, and then-Secretary of DHS Tom Ridge on January 21, 2004).
27 Among FPS protective and security capabilities are (1) specialized response capabilities
(e.g., canine, hazardous materials, and weapons of mass destruction response teams); (2)
intelligence-sharing and investigative collaboration with law enforcement agencies at local,
state, and federal levels; (3) key participation in federal anti-terrorism task forces; and (4)
continuous monitoring of facility alarms and emergencies through FPS remote dispatch
control centers. See [http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/fps061104.htm] for more
information about FPS.

---

CRS-7
meetings, the Committee on Judicial Security and USMS senior management discuss
security, legal, and budget issues. USMS and AOUSC also hold several working
sessions prior to quarterly review meetings with the AOUSC associate director.
Issues discussed at the meetings include purchase and installation of security systems,
CSO staffing, and budget matters. At the local level, U.S. marshals routinely meet
with the district chief judge at court security committee meetings comprising
representatives from the magistrate, district, and bankruptcy courts (and may include
circuit judges and U.S. attorneys) to review and implement security plans. In
addition, AOUSC and USMS consult on security considerations (e.g., design and
installation of security systems) in the construction of new or renovated courthouses.
There have been concerns over the years, however, about adequate staffing,
threat assessment capabilities, and consultation between USMS and AOUSC to
protect the judiciary. The DOJ inspector general (IG)28 issued a report in 2004
recommending that USMS, among other things, (1) ensure that all threats to the
judiciary are assessed within established time frames; (2) update its historical threat
database; (3) assign full-time representatives to all FBI field offices and ensure
effective liaison with intelligence agencies; and (4) create a centralized capability29
to identify, collect, analyze, and share intelligence with USMS districts and other
offices. These concerns were raised at congressional hearings held in 2005,30 and
consultation between USMS and AOUSC was included as a provision in some of the
legislation discussed below. In testimony before the House and Senate
Subcommittees on Financial Services and General Government on March 21, 2007,
Judge Julia S. Gibbons, chair of the Judicial Conference Budget Committee, raised
concerns regarding the cost and quality of FPS security services to protect court
facilities.31
Legislative Action in the 110th Congress
During the first month of the 110th Congress, the chairmen of the House and
Senate Judiciary Committees introduced the Court Security Improvement Act of
28 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Review of the United States
Marshals Service Judicial Security Process, Report Number I-2004-004 (Washington, DC:
March 2004).
29 OPI, as mentioned above, was created within three months after the IG report was issued.
30 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security, Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005, hearing
on H.R. 1751, 109th Cong., 1st sess., April 26, 2005 (Washington: GPO, 2005), and U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Protecting the Judiciary at Home and in the
Courthouse,” hearing, 109th Cong., lst sess., May 18, 2005, S. Hrg. 109-57 (Washington:
GPO, 2005).
31 Statement of Honorable Julia S. Gibbons, Chair, Committee on the Budget of the Judicial
Conference of the United States Before the Subcommittee on Financial Services and
General Government of the Committee of Appropriations of the United States Senate,
March 21, 2007, pp. 9-10, see [http://ww.uscourts.gov/testimony/GibbonsSenate32107.pdf].
Hereafter cited as Judge Gibbons’ March 21, 2007, Statement.

---

CRS-8
2007 — H.R. 660 and S. 378, respectively.32 The companion bills reflect the core
provisions of legislation introduced, but not enacted, in the 109th Congress to address
judicial security issues.
Among other things, both S. 378 and H.R. 660 call for (1) requiring consultation
between USMS and the Judicial Conference of the United States on a continuing
basis to ensure that the conference’s views on security requirements for the judicial
branch are taken into account when determining staffing levels, setting priorities for
security programs, and allocating judicial security resources; (2) extending authority
to redact financial disclosure reports filed by judicial officers, judicial employees,
and their family members by amending the Ethics in Government Act of 1978; (3)
authorizing funds for USMS to hire deputy marshals; (4) imposing fines or
imprisonment (for not more than 10 years), or both, for filing false liens against
federal judges or law enforcement officers; (5) authorizing grants to states, local
governments, and Indian tribes for witness and victim protection programs; (6)
prohibiting dangerous weapons in federal courthouses; and (7) requiring the attorney
general to submit to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, no later than 90
days after the date of enactment of the legislation, a report on the security of assistant
U.S. attorneys and other federal attorneys arising from the prosecution of terrorists,
violent criminal gangs, drug traffickers, gun traffickers, white supremacists, those
who commit fraud and other white-collar offenses, and other criminal cases. In
addition, the bills call for USMS to expand its protective responsibilities to the U.S.
Tax Court. Other provisions concern the assignment of senior judges, and the
appointment of magistrates.
A third bill, H.R. 1130, the Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act, was
introduced to extend the authority through 2009 to redact certain personal
information of judicial officers, judicial employees, and their families from financial
disclosure statements.
House Legislation and Hearing
H.R. 660. On January 24, 2007, House Judiciary Committee Chairman
Conyers introduced (for himself and Representatives Louie Gohmert and Robert C.
Scott) H.R. 660, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. H.R. 660 was
referred to the House Judiciary Committee and, in addition, to the Committees on
Ways and Means, and Oversight and Government Reform (for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker of the House, in each case for consideration
of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned).
On May 3, 2007, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security held a hearing on the bill. Subcommittee Chairman Robert C.
Scott expressed concern about the rise in violence against justices and judges, and
stressed the importance of enhancing judicial security. He highlighted provisions of
H.R. 660 that (1) call for greater consultation between the USMS and the Judicial
Conference of the United States to ensure that the conference’s views are considered
32 For a legal analysis of these two bills, see CRS Report RL33884, Court Security
Improvement Act of 2007: A Legal Analysis of H.R. 660/S. 378, by Charles Doyle.

---

CRS-9
when staffing levels and priorities for security programs and allocation of resources
are determined; (2) authorize adequate resources for the USMS, including $20
million over five years to hire new deputy marshals to investigate threats and provide
protective details for judges and U.S. attorneys; and (3) authorize $100 million (over
five fiscal years) to provide grants to state and local governments to expand and
create witness protection programs.33 The ranking minority member noted that the
bill did not provide for the protection of law enforcement officers. He added,
however, that other legislative efforts were being made to address these concerns.
Stating that there was “a dire need to provide basic security services in the courtroom
and for witnesses” at the state and local level, the ranking minority member said,
“H.R. 660 represents a good first step in that direction. But, in my view, there is
more we can and should do to address this problem.”34
The subcommittee received testimony from Judge Robert M. Bell, chief judge
of the Maryland Court of Appeals; Judge David B. Sentelle, chairman of the Judicial
Conference Committee on Judicial Security; and John F. Clark, director of USMS,
to hear their views on H.R. 660 and issues related to judicial security. Judge Bell,
testifying on behalf of the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State
Court Administrators,35 expressed support for adding provisions to the bill, namely,
the creation of a new federal grant program that would enhance state court security
by conducting assessments and implementing improvements based on those
assessments. He also urged that the highest state court in states and territories be
eligible to apply for federal funds, and that state and local courts be eligible to apply
directly for discretionary federal funding.36
Expressing support for H.R. 660, Judge Sentelle stated that “this bill will
contribute significantly to the security of federal judges and their families.” He
indicated that “great strides” in consultation between USMS and the conference had
been made with regard to the installation of home detection systems in judges’
homes, but that such consultation needed to be formalized in statute (so that such
consultations in the future do not rely on the individuals currently serving in those
positions). To illustrate the level of ongoing interaction, he said, “Director Clark and
I are on the phone or in person together sometimes several times a week, sometimes
for days at a time and in remote locations and technical centers in other parts of the
country.” Judge Sentelle also stressed the importance of redaction authority for
33 Statement of Chairman Scott, “House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security Holds Hearing on H.R. 660, The Court Security Improvement Act of
2007.” Congressional Transcripts, Congressional Hearings, Congressional Quarterly, May
3, 2007, pp. 1-2. Hereafter cited as May 3, 2007, House hearing on H.R. 660.
34 Statement of Rep. J. Randy Forbes, May 3, 2007, House hearing on H.R. 660, pp. 2-3.
35 According to the judge, the conferences’ membership consists of the highest judicial
officers and state court administrators in each of the 50 states; the District of Columbia; the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; the Northern Mariana Islands; and the Territories of
American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. The National Center for State Courts
serves as the secretariat for the conferences and also provides services to state court leaders
throughout the nation.
36 Testimony of Judge Bell, May 3, 2007, House hearing on H.R. 660, pp. 5-6. See
[http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Bell070503.pdf] for Judge Bell’s written testimony.

---

CRS-10
judges’ sensitive information in financial disclosure forms. In written testimony, he
expressed support that the authority be made permanent (not terminated on December
31, 2009, as provided for in the bill and in H.R. 1130, discussed further below), and,
if the House and Senate did not agree to grant permanent authority, he requested that
redaction authority be extended until December 31, 2011.37
Director Clark said that H.R. 660 would “go a long way in helping the
Marshal[s] Service provide the absolute best security for our judicial families.”38
Although not a provision in the bill, the issue of USMS’s ability to issue
administrative subpoenas was raised. Director Clark expressed the view that
“administrative subpoena authority would be of great value” to USMS and “we are
one agency that I believe needs it and should have it and would be very responsible
if we did have it.”39
The upgrade of security in old courthouses, and authority for judges to carry
firearms in courthouses (not provided for in H.R. 660), was also discussed at the
hearing. Judge Sentelle expressed the Judicial Conference’s position in favor of
allowing judges to carry firearms, but the conference would prefer to see such
authority be addressed in a separate bill, so that H.R. 660 would “not be bogged
down by provisions that might be more controversial than what is in there now.”40
Following the subcommittee markup of H.R. 660 on June 6, 2007, the House
Judiciary Committee held a markup on the bill on June 13, 2007. The committee
approved the bill, as amended in the nature of a substitute, and ordered it reported to
the House. The substitute amendment provided for: (1) expanding prohibition of
published personal information of a judge in the bill to include state and local law
enforcement officials, witnesses, and paid informants; (2) making permanent the
37 Testimony of Judge Sentelle, May 3, 2007, House hearing on H.R. 660, pp. 7-9. Among
issues addressed in written testimony, the judge stated that the conference does not take a
position on whether USMS should be required to protect the U.S. Tax Court (as provided
for in Sec. 104 of the bill). He expressed concern that USMS resources to protect the
federal judiciary could be strained if funds were not provided for this purpose, and
suggested that USMS protective services for the U.S. Tax Court be reimbursed by that court.
He further suggested, “If the Committee believes it is necessary to provide expanded
protection to the U.S. Tax Court, we respectfully request that the provision be more
narrowly tailored, replacing the phrase ‘any other court’ with ‘U.S. Tax Court’” (as so
amended in the Senate bill, S. 378). Also on behalf of the conference, Judge Sentelle stated
opposition to a provision (Sec. 504) to amend the Federal Magistrates Act by mandating that
senior judges have the right to vote on candidates for magistrate judge positions (along with
active district judges of the court) because such a change would “unduly restrict the
f l e x i b i l i t y o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t s i n t h i s a r e a . ” S e e
[http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Sentelle070503.pdf] for Judge Sentelle’s written
testimony.
38 Testimony of Director Clark, May 3, 2007, House hearing on H.R. 660, p. 7. See
[http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Clark070503.pdf] for Director Clark’s written
testimony.
39 Ibid., p. 17.
40 Testimony of Judge Sentelle, May 3, 2007, House hearing on H.R. 660, p. 14.

---

CRS-11
redaction authority of sensitive personal information in financial disclosure reports
filed by judicial officers, judicial employees, and their families; (3) increasing
statutory maximum criminal penalties related to assaulting judges; and (4) directing
the U.S. attorney general to study whether the public’s general access to state and
local records may be harmful to the safety of a judge.41
Two other amendments were proposed and discussed at the committee markup.
One amendment would have granted discretionary authority to federal appellate and
district court judges (with certain safeguards for due process rights and measures to
protect non-party witnesses and jurors) to allow media coverage of court proceedings.
Another amendment would have permitted judges and prosecutors to carry firearms.
Both amendments were withdrawn after the committee chairman stated his intention
to hold hearings on both issues in order to give each matter further examination.42
H.R. 1130. On February 16, 2007, House Judiciary Committee Chairman
Conyers introduced (for himself and six original cosponsors) H.R. 1130, the Judicial
Disclosure Responsibility Act. H.R. 1130 would amend the Ethics in Government
Act of 1978 to extend through 2009 the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact
certain personal information (e.g., residences) about judicial officers and judicial
employees in financial disclosure reports which could expose them to potential harm.
The bill would also restrict such information about their family members from
similar disclosure.43 The committee approved the bill by voice vote on February 28,
2007, and it was ordered to be reported. On March 20, 2007, it was reported
(H.Rept. 110-59) and the House passed H.R. 1130 (415-0)44 the next day under
suspension of the rules. The Senate received the bill on March 22, 2007, and it was
referred to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The
Senate discharged the bill from committee by unanimous consent on April 19, 2007,
and passed it by unanimous consent on the same day. On May 3, 2007, the President
signed the bill into law (P.L. 110-24).
41 Based on June 13, 2007, markup transcripts of H.R. 660 on the House Judiciary
Committee’s website, available at [http://judiciary.house.gov/Printshop.aspx?Section=498],
pp. 66-68, and 94-95. At this time, no committee report on H.R. 660 is available.
42 Ibid., pp. 72, 85-86, and 93-94.
43 During the committee markup, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., offered an amendment
to make the redaction permanent. According to Rep. Sensenbrenner’s statement in the
committee report, there was support for the amendment but it was not adopted in order to
expedite sending the measure to the Senate (which reportedly had oversight concerns).
Discussions during the markup indicated that a permanent redaction would be considered
later (when the court security bill is considered). U.S. Congress, House Committee on the
Judiciary, Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act, report to accompany H.R. 1130, 110th
Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 110-59 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 11.
44 On March 8, 2007, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that “enacting H.R. 1130
would have no significant impact on the federal budget.” U.S. Congressional Budget Office,
“Cost Estimate: H.R. 1130, Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act” (Washington, DC:
March 8, 2007), p. 1. Available at [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7853/hr1130.pdf].

---

CRS-12
Senate Legislation and Hearing
S. 378. On January 24, 2007, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy
introduced (for himself and for Senators Arlen Specter, Harry Reid, John Cornyn,
Edward M. Kennedy, Susan M. Collins, Orrin G. Hatch, and Charles E. Schumer) S.
378, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. The bill was referred to the
Senate Judiciary Committee. On February 14, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee
held a hearing on “Judicial Security and Independence.” Chairman Leahy said he
wished that court security legislation had been enacted last year, and noted that it was
a bipartisan measure and a bicameral effort. The chairman said:
We cannot tolerate or excuse violence against judges, and no one should seek to
minimize its corrosive damage to our system. Congress should rise to the
occasion without further delay or distraction and enact the Court Security
Improvement Act. These protections are crucial to the preservation of the
independence of our federal Judiciary so that it can continue to serve as a
bulwark protecting individual rights and liberty. Our Nation’s founders knew
that without an independent Judiciary to protect individual rights from the
political branches of government, those rights and privileges would not be
preserved. The courts are the ultimate check and balance in our system of
government in times of heated political rhetoric. In recent years, Justice Sandra
Day O’Connor has spoken out against the attacks on the Judiciary and the need
to reinforce its security and independence. She continues to lend her voice to
this important topic even after stepping down from the bench.45
Ranking Member Specter and several members of the committee also stated
their strong support for improving judicial security and for making the passage of the
court security bill a priority. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy testified
on the subject of judicial independence.46 Justice Kennedy and others on the
committee expressed the view that the security of the judiciary is vital to judicial
independence. Some emphasized that security means not only physical safety for
judges, but also safety from verbal attacks against the judiciary that can have harmful
consequences.
In submitted testimony, Judge D. Brock Hornby, representing the Judicial
Conference, expressed support for S. 378 and provided the views of the conference
on several provisions of S. 378. Judge Hornby stated, “When enacted, this bill will
contribute significantly to the security of federal judges and their families.”47
45 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, “Statement of The Honorable Patrick
Leahy” (Washington, DC: February 14, 2007.) Available at [http://judiciary.senate.gov/
member_statement.cfm?id=2526&wit_id=103].
46 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, “Testimony of The Honorable
Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court “ (Washington, DC:
F e b r u a r y 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 ) . A v a i l a b l e a t
[http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2526&wit_id=6070].
47 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, “Testimony of The Honorable D.
Brock Hornby, Judge, United States District Court,” (Washington, DC: February 14, 2007.
Available at [http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2526&wit_id=6071].

---

CRS-13
USMS funding and the role it plays in protecting the judiciary were also
discussed at the hearing. John Clark, director of USMS, submitted testimony in
which he related that he had personally met with the chief judges and judicial security
inspectors in many of the 94 judicial districts around the country to discuss the
security needs of each district, in the courthouses and in the judges’ residences. He
also indicated he had many productive meetings with AOUSC Director James Duff.48
On March 1, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved S. 378 with an
amendment by voice vote, and it was ordered to be reported.49 On March 29, 2007,
it was reported (S.Rept. 110-42).50 On April 19, 2007, the Senate passed S. 378, as
48 In addition to reporting on the near completion of the installation of home detection
systems in judges’ homes, USMS Director Clark discussed the reorganization of the Judicial
Security Division (JSD) in November 2006, which reflects two mission-oriented
components: Judicial Operations and Judicial Services. The first component includes an
expanded Office of Protective Intelligence (OPI) with 10 new criminal investigators and one
intelligence specialist to provide threat response capabilities 24 hours a day, seven days a
week, and to analyze and investigate all threats to the federal judiciary. According to the
director, in FY2006, JSD investigated 1,100 judicial threats, handled 230 personal
protection details, and provided security for almost 200 judicial conferences, protected
Supreme Court Justices while on travel, and responded to bomb and hazardous materials
threats as well as improved security at numerous courthouses. Further, the director said JSD
is in the final stages of constructing a Threat Management Center to serve as the nerve
center for threats and inappropriate communications against judicial officials and others
under USMS protection. He also outlined several other initiatives to enhance judicial
security, including improvements in the protective investigations program, and the
establishment of a National Center for Judicial Security that would be operated, staffed, and
managed by members of the JSD and provide services and support to federal, state, local,
and international jurisdictions concerning advice and assistance related to judicial security.
See [http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2526&wit_id=6072] for the text of the
director’s statement.
49 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, “Cost Estimate: S. 378, Court Security Improvement
Act of 2007,” (Washington, DC: March 23, 2007). Available at [http://www.cbo.gov/
ftpdocs/79xx/doc7912/s378.pdf].
50 According to the committee report accompanying S. 378, the committee adopted an
amendment to eliminate the 12th judge on the D.C. Circuit Court and add a judge to the
Ninth Circuit Court (due to the increased workload of the Ninth Circuit, while the D.C. court
workload has decreased in recent years). A Senator offered another amendment to make
permanent one temporary federal judgeship. The chairman had “suggested that such
measures should be considered as part of a comprehensive bill that would address judicial
needs nationwide.” Subsequently, the Senator withdrew his amendment. U.S. Congress,
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, The Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, report to
accompany S. 378, 110th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 110-42 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 3.
On May 8, 2007, the chairman introduced S. 1327, a bill to “create and extend” for 10 years
five expired or soon-to-expire temporary judgeships (one each in California and Nebraska,
which had expired, and another three, in Hawaii, Kansas, and Ohio, which are close to
expiration). The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

---

CRS-14
amended, by a vote of 97-0.51 The House received the Senate-passed bill the next
day.
FY2008 Judicial Security Budget Request
Funding for federal judicial security is generally appropriated annually under
two separate appropriations bills, one for the judiciary and one for USMS. The
House provides funding for the judiciary under the Financial Services and General
Government appropriations bill. Similarly, in the Senate, funding for the judiciary
is provided under the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill.
The Court Security account funds guard services, security systems, and equipment
for courthouses and other federal facilities. Under this account, the bulk of the
funding is transferred to USMS for administering the Judicial Facility Security
Program that pays for CSOs. The judiciary FY2008 budget request for the Court
Security account is $421.8 million and would fund 54 full-time equivalent (FTE)
positions. Of the total requested for this account, approximately $73 million is
projected to pay FPS for its security services in court-occupied space, and about $3
million for program administration and staff costs at the AOUSC.52
USMS is funded under separate appropriations bills. In the House, funding is
provided under Title I of the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill. In the Senate, funding is under Title I of the
Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill.53 For FY2008, the Administration has requested $899.9 million
for USMS, of which $376.9 million would be allocated for judicial and courthouse
security. The FY2008 request would fund 1,750 FTE positions.
House and Senate Subcommittee Appropriations Hearings
On March 21, 2007, the House and Senate Subcommittees on Financial Services
and General Government held separate hearings on the FY2008 federal judiciary
budget request. Representative José E. Serrano, chairman of the House
Subcommittee on Financial Services, and Senator Richard J. Durbin, chairman of
the Senate Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, each
expressed concern about judicial security. Judge Julia S. Gibbons, chair of the
51 The Senate adopted by unanimous consent S.Amdt. 896, a manager’s amendment to make
technical and clarifying changes concerning the protection of magistrate judges and U.S.
Tax Court judges. Under this amendment, the U.S. Tax Court would reimburse USMS for
its protective services. Although a number of other amendments were filed or considered,
they were not adopted. Among them were S.Amdt. 891, an amendment to express the sense
of the Senate that Congress should offset the cost of new spending (tabled by a vote of 59-
38); and S.Amdt. 897, an amendment to provide for the appointment of additional federal
circuit judges and to divide the Ninth Judicial Circuit into two circuits, and for other
purposes (ruled out of order by the chair).
52 Based on information provided to the author by AOUSC on May 25, 2007.
53 The differences reflect the restructuring of House and Senate subcommittees’ jurisdictions
at the beginning of the 110th Congress.

---

CRS-15
Judicial Conference Committee on the Budget, and James C. Duff, director of
AOUSC, testified at both hearings. Judge Gibbons detailed her concerns about
inoperable cameras that provide surveillance of the exterior of some courthouses. In
one instance, after pellets were fired at a district courthouse at night, the court
discovered that no surveillance footage could be reviewed because the FPS cameras
were not recording any exterior views. Following several reports from district judges
that the perimeter security equipment provided by FPS had not been maintained or
repaired and that security may have been compromised, USMS assumed
responsibility for the repairing or replacing of FPS-perimeter security cameras. She
expressed her appreciation to USMS, but noted that the situation resulted in the
judiciary paying both USMS and FPS for identical services. According to Judge
Gibbons, “FPS continues to be unable to provide the Judiciary with adequate cost-
effective services, working equipment, detailed billing records, and timely cost
projections.” She told the subcommittees that the Judicial Conference voted a week
ago to support the efforts of USMS to assume security functions currently performed
by FPS at court facilities (where the judiciary is the primary tenant), and to be funded
for the associated costs.54
In his testimony, Director Duff stated that the judiciary and USMS were
“building a stronger working relationship.” Noting that USMS Director Clark had
attended each of the Judicial Conference’s Judicial Security Committee meetings
since its establishment in January 2006, and his efforts to encourage his senior staff
to meet regularly with AOUSC staff to consult and implement security policies,
Director Duff stated, “This improved relationship with the USMS will enhance the
security of the Judiciary.”55
In committee report language, the House Appropriations Committee expressed
concern with “the quality of service” the Federal Protective Service has provided the
judiciary, and encouraged the judiciary to “continue to explore options with other
Federal law enforcement agencies that might be able to provide these security
services.”56
Judicial Conference Actions
By statute,57 the Judicial Conference must hold annual meetings. By tradition,
however, the conference meets semiannually, in March and September of each year.
At the March 15, 2005, meeting, just four days after the Atlanta courthouse shooting,
54 Judge Gibbons’ March 21, 2007, Statement, pp. 9-10.
55 See [http://www.uscourts.gov/testimony/Duff_Senate32107.pdf] for the text of Director
Duff’s testimony.
56 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Bill, 2008, report to accompany H.R. 2829, 110th Cong., 1st
sess., H.Rpt.110-207 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 45.
57 28 U.S.C. Sec. 331. After each of the conference meetings, separate meetings of circuit
chief judges and district judge representatives typically are held, and are chaired by judges
selected from the conference membership.

---

CRS-16
the conference adopted a resolution that called on DOJ and USMS to review fully
and expeditiously all aspects of judicial security, particularly security at judges’
homes and other locations away from the courthouse. The conference also called
upon the legislative and executive branches to provide adequate security funding and
took the following actions:
! directed AOUSC to work with commercial information providers to
block certain information about judges and their families;
! tasked conference committees to review whether further action
would be needed to improve off-site security for judges; and
! asked the Security and Facilities Committee to continue to work
with USMS on off-site security for judges.
At the September 20, 2005, meeting, the Judicial Conference Committee on
Security and Facilities decided to develop an agreement between AOUSC and DOJ
to provide up to $4,000 per judge for the purchase of home intrusion detection
systems (from the $11.9 million appropriated to USMS for this purpose by P.L. 109-
13). The conference also adopted a recommendation, proposed by the Executive
Committee, to divide the Committee on Security and Facilities into two committees:
the Committee on Judicial Security,58 and the Committee on Space and Facilities.
The jurisdictional change, enabling a separate committee to devote its full attention
on judicial security, became effective October 1, 2005.
At the March 14, 2006, meeting, the Judicial Conference voted to:
! authorize the placement of security screening equipment and
contract security guards at leased facilities housing federal probation
and pretrial services offices (about 50 offices nationwide are in
leased space, not federal courthouses);
! urge USMS to provide more frequent training for deputy marshals
and judicial security inspectors responsible for security surveys of
judges’ homes, and more training on how to provide an effective
security detail;
! encourage newly appointed federal judges to provide personal
information to USMS, as requested, and for USMS to ensure the
security of such information; and
58 The committee is charged to review, monitor, and recommend to the conference policies
regarding the security of the federal judiciary, e.g., protection of court facilities and
proceedings, for judicial officers, other officers and employees of the judiciary, and their
families.

---

CRS-17
! urge the U.S. Bureau of Prisons to adopt a policy of screening (but
not reading) all outgoing mail to judges and courts from inmates in
federal prisons.59
At the September 19, 2006, meeting, the Judicial Conference had voted to ask
Congress to appropriate funds directly to the Federal Protective Service (FPS), and
to request that the President incorporate direct funding for FPS charges in the
President’s FY2008 budget request.60
As Judge Gibbons noted at the March 21, 2007, House and Senate budget
hearings, the Judicial Conference recently voted to endorse a recommendation to
support the efforts of USMS, possibly by legislative means, to assume security
functions at court facilities (where the judiciary is the primary tenant) currently
performed by FPS, and to receive funding for these functions.61
Actions by the National Center for the State Courts
In addition the federal response to the killings in Chicago and Atlanta, state and
local officials also suggested or adopted measures for enhanced security of judges,
court personnel, and courthouses. In addition to their value in improving state court
security, those actions may provide lessons for federal judicial security efforts. Also,
congressional interest in the security of the state courts is evidenced by the inclusion
of provisions contained in legislation that provide federal grants to states.
In introducing S. 1968 in the 109th Congress, Senator Specter said that the
“rampage in Atlanta reminds us that the issue of judicial security is no less of a
compelling problem for State and local courts, where approximately 32,000 State and
local court judges sit compared to approximately 2,400 Federal judges.”62 Some have
observed that there are occasions when threats made against state judges follow them
when they move to the federal bench.63 There has been some consultation and
sharing of information between the federal and state entities to enhance the security
of the courts. For example, Judge Jane Roth (then-chair of the Judicial Conference’s
Security and Facilities Committee and a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
spoke at a summit on state court security (discussed below).
59 U.S. Courts, “Conference Supports Shift in Responsibility for Courthouses,” news release
(Washington, DC: March 14, 2006). Available at [http://www.uscourts.gov/
Press_Releases/judconf031406.html].
60 FPS charges federal agencies for its services on a pro-rata basis. The judiciary could save
administrative costs were the Department of Homeland Security to provide funding directly
to FPS. U.S. Courts, “Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United
States,” September 19, 2006, p. 10. Available at [http://www.uscourts.gov/judconf/
proceedingsSept06.pdf]
61 Judge Gibbons’s March 21, 2007, Statement, p. 9.
62 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, November 7, 2005, p. S12449.
63 Based on information provided by a court security expert to the author on May 31, 2006.

---

CRS-18
The National Center for State Courts (NCSC)64 has developed proposals on the
security issue. In March 2005, NCSC issued the Essential Ten Elements for Effective
Courtroom Safety and Security Planning, a document intended to serve as a
framework for state judicial security.65 The 10 elements dealt with such matters as
funding, threat assessments, standard operating procedures, and court design. The
Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators’ Joint
Committee on Security and Emergency Preparedness have been working on a manual
that is based on the 10 elements. NCSC followed the recommendations by
sponsoring a National Summit on Court Safety and Security66 on April 21, 2005,
which was partially funded by DOJ. The summit convened 100 state chief justices;
sheriffs; court administrators; and federal, state, and local policymakers. Preliminary
recommendations proposed by the summit were to (1) create a national threat
assessment and incident reporting database to provide critical information to all
stakeholder groups; (2) create a national clearinghouse on court security to facilitate
information sharing and cross-cutting research; (3) create strategies for leveraging
resources across stakeholder groups at the national, state, and local levels; and (4)
integrate court safety and security issues in homeland security planning and funding.
A follow-up summit was held on November 17, 2005, to continue the
discussions. NCSC credited Judge Roth, a speaker at both summits, for being
instrumental in identifying federal security issues and resources. As a result of the
summits, a report, A National Strategic Plan For Judicial Branch Security, was
issued on February 7, 2006. It recommended several strategies, including the
following: (1) promote leadership, (2) establish a national coalition on court security,
(3) develop a national incident-reporting database, (4) address education and training
needs, and (5) pursue funding for these activities.67
In March 2006, NCSC, USMS, and the National Sheriffs Association met to
discuss areas in which they can collaborate and build on one another’s resources.
They identified three initial activities that were needed: (1) a court security workshop
to be offered at the National Association for Court Management’s annual meeting
64 NCSC is an independent, nonprofit organization, whose mission is “to improve the
administration of justice through leadership and service to state courts, and courts around
the world.” For more information about NCSC, see [http://www.ncsconline.org/
D_About/index.htm].
65 The document was created by the NCSC Joint Committee of Conference of Chief Justices
and the Conference of State Court Administrators Security and Emergency Preparedness
Committee. The 10 elements were: (1) Operation Security: Standard Operating Procedures;
(2) Facility Security Planning: Self Audit Survey of Court Facilities; (3) Emergency
Preparedness and Response: Continuity of Operations; (4) Disaster Recovery: Essential
Elements of a Plan; (5) Threat Assessment; (6) Incident Reporting; (7) Funding; (8) Security
Equipment and Costs; (9) Resources and Partnerships; and (10) New Courthouse Design.
See the NCSC press release at [http://www.ncsconline.org/What’sNew/TenPointPlan.pdf].
66 For more information about the summit and its preliminary findings, see
[http://www.ncsconline.org/What’sNew/CourtSecurity/PriminaryFindingdApril25.htm].
67 Dr. Pamela Casey, A National Strategic Plan for Judicial Branch, prepared for the
National Center for State Courts and the National Sheriff’s Association, February 7, 2006.
The report is available at [http://216.15.146.200/MS/MS32/page.php?p=355].

---

CRS-19
that summer; (2) educational programs to train judges and court staff to identify
possible threats and suspicious behavior, and to enhance their personal safety; and
(3) a USMS National Institute on Judicial Security to provide court professionals
with education and technical assistance.68
Concluding Observations
In the two years following the Chicago and Atlanta murders, federal and state
officials raised concerns about judicial security, and several proposals for
improvement were considered or adopted. The Judicial Conference made
recommendations and took actions to enhance security for court facilities and provide
off-site protection for judges. Legislation was enacted providing funds to USMS for
the installation of intrusion detection systems in the homes of federal judges who
requested them. To date, installation has been completed in about 90% of the judges’
homes. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees are continuing to conduct
hearings, and legislation has been introduced to improve overall federal judicial
security. As Congress considers efforts to enhance judicial security by authorizing
programs, appropriating funds, and conducting oversight, the following are some of
the issues Congress might choose to address.
Resources and Staffing. The FY2008 budget requests for the judiciary and
USMS funds and staff to maintain and enhance the security of the judiciary. Even
if the budget requests are fully funded, subsequent events (e.g., gaps in security
revealed later in the event of further tragedies, or across-the-board reductions in
spending) may lead some to suggest the need for additional funding. Congress may
consider whether continuing resolutions could lead to funding delays and affect
implementation of needed security enhancements. Any potential changes in FPS
funding and jurisdiction for the security functions it provides to the judiciary may
have short- and long-term administrative, staffing, and other implications for the
judiciary, USMS, and FPS.
Consultation and Coordination. As evidenced by testimony presented at
congressional hearings, there have been long-standing questions raised about the
degree and quality of communications between the principal entities charged with
protecting the judiciary. Provisions in both House and Senate bills discussed in this
report call for improved consultation and coordination between USMS and AOUSC,
or between the Judicial Conference and USMS. There is, however, no requirement
in the bills that any of these organizations report to Congress on actions taken to
consult or coordinate. Both AOUSC and USMS have relatively new directors, and
new leadership may create potential opportunities for enhancing judiciary-USMS
consultation and coordination. Issues concerning adequate FPS protective services
for the perimeter of judicial facilities are also a concern that may require greater
coordination and communication, or other remedies.
Federal and State Collaboration. As noted in this report, there have been
several instances of federal and state courts collaborating and communicating to
68 Information was provided to the author by the NCSC on April 7, 2006.

---

CRS-20
address judicial security issues. Building on those relationships, perhaps through
partnerships to establish a national clearing house on judicial security information,
might help to enhance security at the both the national and state levels. The sharing
of information and resources (e.g., either through technological means or at regularly
scheduled seminars involving federal and state officials, and others) might also prove
more cost-effective than a less collaborative relationship.
Continued Focus and Oversight. The challenge to federal and state
officials is continuing to make judicial security issues a priority. Generally, after
tragic events — such as the murders in Chicago and Atlanta, and the shooting in
Reno — immediate efforts are taken to address the issue. As time elapses, however,
the momentum generated in the aftermath of those tragedies is often difficult to
sustain. Therefore, continued congressional oversight and legislative action may be
a critical factor to enhance the security of the judiciary.

---

CRS-21
Appendix: Legislation in the 109th Congress
During the 109th Congress, legislation was introduced and hearings were held
in both the House of Representatives and the Senate related to the issue of judicial
security. The subjects of that legislation and those hearings included ways to
improve security for judicial officers in the courtrooms, to safeguard judges and their
families at home, to restrict personal information postings about judicial officials on
the Internet, and to increase penalties for acts against judicial officials and other law
enforcement personnel. Of the 11 bills discussed below, one bill, H.R. 1268, was
enacted into law (P.L. 109-13), to provide funds to USMS for intrusion detection
systems in judges’ homes. Another bill (H.R. 4311) passed both houses, but was not
enacted. The House passed two other bills (H.R. 1751 and H.R. 447269), and the
Senate passed one other bill (S. 1558). In addition, although the Senate adopted S.
2766 with a court security amendment, the bill was later incorporated into another
bill, H.R. 5122 — without the court security provisions.
Legislation Enacted
On May 11, 2005, the President signed into law H.R. 1268, Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Tsunami Relief, 2005 (P.L. 109-13). The law included an appropriation of $11.9
million to USMS, as the Judicial Conference requested, to provide intrusion
detection systems in judges’ homes. According to the 2005 Annual Report of the
Director, AOUSC staff and the Judicial Conference’s Judicial Security Committee
worked with USMS to implement the home intrusion detection system program.
USMS agreed to pay the charges for their monitoring and maintenance. According
to USMS, of the 1,616 requests judges and magistrates made to install security
systems in their homes, 1,413 systems have been installed. Pre-installation surveys
of all homes have been completed.70
House Legislation and Hearing
H.R. 1751. Among the House bills related to judicial security introduced
during the 109th Congress, H.R. 1751, the Secure Access to Justice and Courtroom
Protection Act of 2005, was the subject of a hearing. Representative Louie Gohmert
introduced H.R. 1751, for himself and Representative Anthony D. Weiner, on April
21, 2005. Among other provisions, the bill would (1) prohibit the possession of a
dangerous weapon in a federal court facility; (2) increase penalties for assaulting,
kidnaping, or murdering judges or their families; (3) restrict the posting of certain
personal information about judges, jurors, or witnesses on the Internet; (4) require
USMS to coordinate with AOUSC on security issues; and (5) provide states with
69 However, H.R. 4472, the Children’s Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act, was
ultimately passed and signed into law without the court security provisions of H.R. 1751,
the Secure Access to Justice and Courtroom Protection Act of 2005. Both bills are
discussed below.
70 Based on information provided by USMS to the author on February 8, 2007.

---

CRS-22
grants for witness and victim protection programs, grants for threat assessment
databases, and funding for states to enhance court security.
On April 26, 2005, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a hearing on H.R. 1751. Representative
Howard Coble, then-chairman of the subcommittee, stated at the beginning of the
hearing:
We must work together in a bipartisan effort to ensure that our
judicial system operates in a safe environment. Judges, witnesses,
courthouse personnel, and law enforcement must not have to face
threats of violence when carrying out their duties. Our mission here
is to provide the resources and the tools necessary to ensure that our
judicial system works. Our words must translate into deeds and
meaningful reforms and resources.71
Highlights of the hearing included the testimony of Judge Cynthia Stevens Kent,
of the 114th Judicial District Court in Tyler, Texas, who has received numerous death
threats over the years. Judge Kent expressed her support for H.R. 1751 and called
the bill a “thoughtful and wonderful start to addressing the need to protect judges,
prosecutors, jurors, witnesses, and those who are in our judicial system.” She asked
the committee to consider a number of recommendations, including (1) creating a
national clearing house to collect and correlate federal and state breaches of security;
(2) developing protocols to respond to the threats; (3) enacting tougher penalties for
threats, assaults, and murders of judges and their families; (4) establishing grant
programs to distribute funds to state courts to enhance security; and (5) providing
federal judges with emergency communication devices, including global positioning
system capabilities.72
In her testimony, Judge Jane R. Roth, then-chair of the Judicial Conference’s
Security and Facilities Committee and a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals,
stressed concerns about USMS staffing shortages, and its ability to provide judicial
security as well as manage its other law enforcement duties (e.g., to apprehend
fugitives, asset forfeiture, and witness protection). Judge Roth also expressed
concerns about what she viewed as USMS threat assessment capabilities, and DOJ’s
willingness to share information about staffing levels and to consider changes with
the Judicial Conference. She supported a number of security actions, some of which
were already part of H.R. 1751: consultation and coordination between the director
of AOUSC and the director of USMS regarding judicial security requirements;
installation of home intrusion detection systems; permanent authority to redact
certain information from judges’ financial disclosure; firearms training for judges;
and penalties for those who file false liens against judges.73
71 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security, Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005, hearing
on H.R. 1751, 109th Cong., 1st sess., April 26, 2005 (Washington: GPO), p. 1.
72 Ibid., pp. 19-20.
73 Ibid., pp. 8-10.

---

CRS-23
John F. Clarke, then-U. S. marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia (who was
confirmed to be director of USMS on March 16, 2006), also testified at the hearing.
Mr. Clarke stated that USMS was on target to implement all of DOJ’s inspector
general’s March 2004 report, Review of the United States Marshals Service Judicial
Security Process. He also said that the chairman of the Judicial Security Review
Working Group that Attorney General Gonzales established soon after the Chicago
and Atlanta murders had met with the Judicial Conference and AOUSC. He also
noted that DOJ had provided $100,000 to the National Center for State Courts
(NCSC) for its study of state and local court security. (NCSC initiatives are discussed
later in the report.)
On November 9, 2005, the House passed H.R. 1751 by a vote of 375 to 45. The
bill included an amendment that would authorize any federal judge, magistrate, U.S.
attorney, or any other DOJ officer who represents the U. S. in a court of law, to carry
firearms (subject to training and regulation that the U. S. Attorney General
prescribes). It also included a provision that would make permanent the authority for
the judiciary to redact information on judges in their financial disclosure forms to
protect them from possible threats.74
On November 10, 2006, the Senate received the bill and referred it to the Senate
Judiciary Committee. The bill was discharged from the committee by unanimous
consent on December 6, 2006. On that same day, the Senate passed H.R. 1751, as
amended, by unanimous consent, but no final action on the bill was taken prior to the
109th Congress’s adjournment.
H.R. 1710. On April 19, 2005, Representative Weiner introduced H.R. 1710,
the “Internet Police Protection Act of 2005,” which would prohibit knowingly
making restricted personal information about a covered official publicly available
through the Internet. The bill defined “covered official” to include a U.S. court
officer, juror, or magistrate judge, or a grand or petit juror. The bill was referred to
the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the House
Judiciary Committee on May 10, 2005. The main thrust of the bill, to help protect
covered officials from harmful information being posted on the Internet, was
incorporated in H.R. 1751 (introduced two days after H.R. 1710, with Representative
Weiner as an original cosponsor) and H.R. 4472 (discussed below).
H.R. 4311. On November 14, 2005, Representative James F. Sensenbrenner,
Jr., then-chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced H.R. 4311, a bill
to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. The legislation would make
permanent provisions to allow redaction of judges’ required financial disclosure
forms if the Judicial Conference found that the release of the information could
endanger a judge or the judge’s family. The House passed the bill on December 7,
74 Reportedly, there were discussions at the end of September 2006 to include the court
security provisions of H.R. 1751 in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007,
H.R. 5122, and subsequent discussions to possibly add them to the port security bill, H.R.
4954. However, both bills were passed without the court security measures. See John. M.
Donnelly, “2006 Legislative Summary: Defense Authorization,” CQ Weekly, December 18,
2006, p. 3341, and Kathryn A. Wolfe, “Port Security Legislation Clears,” CQ Today,
October 9, 2006, p. 2708.

---

CRS-24
2005, by voice vote, under suspension of the rules, and sent it to the Senate on
December 12, 2005. On January 27, 2006, it was referred to the Senate Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. On June 7, 2006, the Senate
discharged H.R. 4311 from committee, amended the bill to include family members
and to extend the public filing requirement, and passed the bill by unanimous
consent. The Senate sent a message on its action to the House on the same day. No
further action was taken prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress.
H.R. 4472. On December 8, 2005, Representative Sensenbrenner introduced
H.R. 4472, the “Children’s Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act.” H.R. 4472
was a package of the core provisions of three previously passed anti-crime bills:
H.R. 3132 (the Children’s Safety Act of 2005), H.R. 1279 (Gang Prevention and
Deterrence Act), and the previously discussed H.R. 1751 (the Secure Access to
Justice and Courthouse Protection Act).75 Title VII of the bill contained several
provisions relating to court security that were contained in H.R. 1751. Among other
things, it would have (1) required USMS to consult regularly with AOUSC on
judicial security; (2) authorized the appropriation of an additional $20 million for
USMS for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010 to hire additional staff for court
security; (3) required a report by the Attorney General on the security of federal
prosecutors; (4) established special penalties for murder, kidnaping, and related
crimes against federal judges and federal law enforcement officers; (5) authorized
federal judges and prosecutors to carry firearms; and (6) prohibited the possession of
a dangerous weapon in a court facility. H.R. 4472 had also incorporated the main
thrust of H.R. 1710 to help protect covered officials from harmful information being
made public so that it could be used to intimidate or facilitate the commission of a
crime of violence against that official or an immediate family member. The House
passed the bill by voice vote, on March 8, 2006, under suspension of the rules. H.R.
4472 was referred to the Senate on March 9, 2006. However, as passed by the Senate
on July 20, 2006, and signed into law (P.L. 109-248) on July 27, 2006, the legislation
did not include the court security provisions.
H.R. 4732. On February 8, 2006, Representative Jon C. Porter introduced H.R.
4732, a bill to provide federal penalties for killing federally funded public safety
officers, including judicial officers (e.g., judges, prosecutors, and court security
officers). H.R. 4732 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on February 8,
2006, but no further action was taken prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress.
Senate Legislation and Hearing
On May 18, 2005, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing entitled
“Protecting the Judiciary at Home and in the Courthouse.” The committee heard
testimony that highlighted the nature and scope of threats against judges, other law
enforcement officials, and their families, and the need for better consultation between
the Judiciary and USMS to improve security. Senator Arlen Specter, then-chairman
of the committee, stated the following at the beginning of the hearing:
75 H.R. 4472 did not include the photographing, broadcasting, or televising the courts that
had been part of H.R. 1751.

---

CRS-25
There’s no doubt that the rule of law is the backbone of our civilized society.
The capability of the judiciary to determine the rule of law without fear or favor
is an indispensable prerequisite in our democratic society. Personal security,
along with judicial independence, must be safeguarded at all costs.76
Highlights of the hearing included testimony from Judge Joan H. Lefkow,
whose husband and mother were murdered at her home on February 28, 2005. Judge
Lefkow appealed to the committee to make judicial security a priority, and to
“support the vital role of judges in sustaining a society based on the rule of law
instead of right being defined by might.”77 She advocated the rapid distribution of
funds for judges’ home intrusion detection systems (discussed later in this report),
and urged support for legislation to prohibit the posting of personal information about
judges and other public officials on the Internet without their written consent. Judge
Lefkow also requested adequate funding and staffing for USMS. Finally, because of
what she termed “gratuitous attacks on the judiciary” that she viewed as encouraging
attacks on judges, she appealed for the committee’s “help in tempering the tone of
the debates that concern the independence of the judiciary.”
Judge Roth, who had testified in April before the House subcommittee on H.R.
1751, reiterated her concerns about judicial security. She expressed her view that
there was “an ongoing crisis in the relationship that exists between the judiciary, the
United States Marshal Service and the Department of Justice,” and that the judiciary
had been excluded from the key areas of policy, planning, and budget when resource
needs are determined. She proposed that USMS and the judiciary be required “to
jointly submit to Congress 180 days after the date of enactment a report that states
what the security needs of the judiciary are and how they are to be addressed” as a
way to assist committee oversight, and to bring about a more productive relationship
between judiciary and DOJ.78
Senator Specter also referred to the DOJ IG’s March 2004 report on USMS
threat assessment capability to collect and to share intelligence. IG Glenn A. Fine
submitted written testimony to the committee that discussed the report’s
recommendations, indicated that USMS had agreed with all the recommendations,
and stated that USMS had since provided the information on the status of corrective
action. With the killings in Chicago and Atlanta, the IG expressed his belief that
USMS Office of Protective Intelligence must be staffed appropriately in order to
effectively collect, analyze, and disseminate intelligence to provide the necessary
security for the federal Judiciary. The IG concluded that, although USMS had begun
to take steps to address the deficiencies, USMS and DOJ should address the issues
on an expedited basis.79
76 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Protecting the Judiciary at Home and
in the Courthouse, hearing, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 18, 2005, S.Hrg. 109-57
(Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 1.
77 Ibid., p. 7.
78 Ibid., p. 14.
79 Ibid., p. 78.

---

CRS-26
Then-director of USMS, Benigno Reyna, also testified at the hearing and
described USMS’s mission, scope of responsibilities, and the challenges as it works
to provide protection for the Judiciary.80
S. 1605. On July 29, 2005, Senator Jon Kyl introduced S. 1605, the “Law
Enforcement Officers’ Protection Act of 2005,” which would amend the federal
criminal code to prohibit killing or attempting to kill a federally funded public safety
officer (including a judicial officer). The bill would establish or increase penalties
for: (1) assaulting federally funded public safety officers (including a federal judge
and other federal officials; (2) retaliating against such an officer, judge, or official by
murdering or assaulting a family member; and (3) committing murder, manslaughter,
and related crimes under federal jurisdiction. S. 1605 was referred to the Senate
Judiciary Committee, but no further action was taken before the 109th Congress
adjourned.
S. 1558. On July 29, 2005, Senator Susan M. Collins introduced, for herself
and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, S. 1558, a bill that would amend the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978.81 Similar to H.R. 4311, this bill would exempt family
members of judicial officers and employees (under current law, only officers and
employees are exempt) from publicly filing reports disclosing certain personal and
sensitive information, if there is a finding that publication of such information could
endanger judicial officers, employees, or their families. The bill would allow a report
to be redacted to the extent necessary to protect these individuals, and extend the
authority to redact for four years to December 31, 2009. S. 1558 had been referred
to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on the day
it was introduced. On November 10, 2005, the bill was discharged from the
committee by unanimous consent, and passed by unanimous consent on the same day
with two amendments82 sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy. S. 1558 was received
by the House on November 14, 2005, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
The bill was subsequently referred to the House Subcommittee on Courts, the
Internet, and Intellectual Property on February 6, 2006. No further action was taken
on the bill prior to the end of the 109th Congress. (As noted earlier, the Senate passed
H.R. 4311 on June 7, 2006.)
S. 1968. On November 7, 2005, Senator Specter introduced S. 1968, the
“Court Security Improvement Act of 2005,” for himself and Senators John Cornyn
and Patrick Leahy. Several of the bill’s core provisions are similar to H.R. 1751.
Among other things, S. 1968 would (1) require the director of USMS to consult and
coordinate with the Judicial Conference on security requirements for the judicial
branch on a continuing basis; (2) impose penalties against those who file false liens
against federal judges and federal law enforcement officers, who may be the targets
80 Ibid., pp. 16-18.
81 The bill would amend 5 U.S.C. App., Sec. 105(b)(3) and Sec. 105(b)(3)E.
82 One amendment changed the title of the bill to read: “To amend the Ethics in Government
Act of 1978 to protect family members of filers from disclosing sensitive information in a
public filing and to extend for 4 years the authority to redact financial disclosure statements
of judicial employees and judicial officers.” The other amendment inserted language in the
bill to include family members of judicial officers and employees.

---

CRS-27
of retaliation; (3) prohibit possession of dangerous weapons in federal court facilities;
(4) provide grants to states to improve security for state and local court systems; and
(5) authorize the Attorney General to make grants to states, local governments, and
Indian tribes to create and expand programs to protect witnesses and victims of
crime. Like S. 1558 and H.R. 4311, the bill would also extend authority to redact
personal or sensitive information from financial disclosure forms that may harm
family members of judicial officers, and extend the provision for five years. S. 1968
was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 7, 2005. (See below
for efforts to include the bill’s court security provisions in the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2007.) No further action on the bill was taken prior to the
adjournment of the 109th Congress.
Amendment 4252 to S. 2766. On June 14, 2006, Senator Harry Reid
submitted (for himself and Senators Patrick Leahy, Arlen Specter, Richard Durbin,
with Senator Barack Obama added as a cosponsor on the following day) a court
security amendment (essentially the text of S. 1968, see above) to S. 2766, the
National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 (introduced on May 9, 2006). The
next day, on June 15, 2006, Senator Carl Levin proposed the amendment, as
modified, on Senator Reid’s behalf. The Senate adopted the amendment, en bloc
with other amendments, by unanimous consent, and the Senate subsequently passed
S. 2766 on June 22, 2006. However, the House version of the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2007, H.R. 5122, did not include court security provisions.
Although there were discussions about including such measures in H.R. 5122,
ultimately, the court security provisions (Sec. 1086) as proposed by the Senate were
not included in the conference report (H.Rept. 109-702) to H.R. 5122, which the
House passed (398-23) on September 29, 2006, and that the Senate subsequently
passed by unanimous consent the next day. Thus, the bill that the President signed
into law (P.L. 109-364) on October 17, 2006, did not contain court security
provisions.
S. 3835. On August 3, 2006, Senator John Cornyn introduced S. 3835, the
Court and Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 2006. The bill would (1)
impose mandatory minimum prison terms for homicide, manslaughter, and kidnaping
crimes against federal judges and law enforcement officers; (2) allow federal judges,
U.S. attorneys, and Justice Department employees to carry firearms; (3) increase
penalties for assaults against U.S. employees and officers and impose mandatory
minimum prison terms for assaults against federal judges or law enforcement
officers; and (4) impose mandatory minimum penalties for retaliating against a
federal judge or law enforcement officer by murdering, kidnaping, assaulting, or
threatening a family member. The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary
Committee, but no further action was taken before the 109th Congress adjourned.

---