INSIGHTi

Security for the Federal Judiciary: Recent
Developments
April 11, 2023
Chief Justice John Roberts, in his year-end report for 2022, stated that the “law requires every judge to
swear an oath to perform his or her work without fear or favor” and that, in order to perform that work,
judges must be supported by ensuring their safety. The Chief Justice’s year-end report was in response to
ongoing concerns related to judicial security, particularly given the increase in the number of threats
against federal judges and other judiciary personnel. Specifically, according to the U.S. Marshals Service
(USMS), there were 4,511 threats and inappropriate communications against federal judges and other
court personnel in 2021. This represented a 387% increase over threats and inappropriate communications
that occurred in 2015 (when there were 926 such incidents).
According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts (AO), such threats and inappropriate
communications are caused, in part, by “litigants angered by judges’ decisions in cases” and have
involved, in some instances, the home addresses of judges handling controversial cases being circulated
on social media. More generally, “the proliferation of judges’ personally identifiable information (PII) on
the internet has been a major concern ... in the wake of several attacks on judges in recent years.”
This Insight provides an overview of recent developments related to judicial security (a prior Insight
discussed, among other issues, information about the specific agencies responsible for judicial security).
Passage of the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act
In December 2022, Congress passed the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act (P.L. 117-263).
The legislation, in part, protects judges’ personally identifiable information from resale by data brokers
and allows federal judges to redact personal information on federal government internet sites. The law
also prohibits the publication of a judge’s personal information by other businesses and individuals where
there is no legitimate news media or other public interest. The legislation was in response to the killing of
a U.S. district court judge’s son by a former litigant who was stalking the judge with information taken
from internet searches.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN12143
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

---

Congressional Research Service
2
Implementation of the Judiciary’s Vulnerability Management Program
The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, as part of implementing the federal judiciary’s Vulnerability
Management Program, added two new branches to its Judiciary Security Division in 2022.
 The Threat Management Branch works with other AO programs to assist judges in
removing or redacting their PII from LexisNexis and Westlaw records databases and from
annual financial disclosure reports. Through November 2022, more than 600 federal
judges were provided with assistance in removing or redacting such information. The
branch also engages in information-sharing with executive branch security providers to
analyze threats against the judiciary.
 The Judiciary Security Operations Branch, once fully implemented, “will coordinate the
delivery of physical security and emergency preparedness programs” for the federal
judiciary. A branch chief and 16 permanent circuit-level judiciary security officers will be
responsible for supporting courthouse security and preparedness programs for court
buildings and federal defenders offices, as well as coordinating communication between
the judiciary and its executive branch security and preparedness providers.
Hardening of Courthouses
The federal judiciary is working with USMS and other executive branch security providers “to analyze
the security measures needed to harden each courthouse.” Depending on the specific courthouse, some of
the initial measures toward hardening involve
 replacing windows with (or adding, as appropriate) break-resistant glass or glass
coverings for pedestrian accessible windows (windows that can be accessed without
ladders or climbing);
 hardening exterior doors with break-resistant glass or glass film, roll-down gates, and
other capabilities, as needed;
 installing automatic door locks that can be engaged by the security officers at their
guard stations and from the control room; and
 installing anti-scalable fencing, where needed, to protect the perimeter of the facility.
Security of Supreme Court Justices
Following the unauthorized release of a controversial draft opinion for a case that had been pending
before the U.S. Supreme Court and protests related to the draft opinion, Attorney General Merrick
Garland directed the USMS (a bureau within the Department of Justice) to provide “around-the-clock
security” for the Court’s Justices, including at their private residences.
During a recent Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing, Attorney General Garland expressed his
hope that such security will not be provided indefinitely by the USMS. Specifically, he stated “we’re
hoping this isn’t a long-term solution for the justices, because there are a lot of courts around the country.
And marshals have traditional security responsibilities—and that’s to say nothing of their fugitive
apprehension responsibilities.”
According to a press account, a Justice Department official stated that the Attorney General “is not
proposing to withdraw the marshals until another protective force is in place and the DOJ budget request
assumes that will take time.” For example, the USMS is seeking $21 million to hire additional deputy
marshals in FY2024 in order to continue the protective details for the Justices.

---

Congressional Research Service
3
Appropriations for Judicial Security
The largest discretionary appropriation for judicial security is provided for in the Court Security account
of the judiciary’s annual budget. By statute, the USMS has primary responsibility for the security of the
federal judiciary. Appropriations enacted by Congress in 2022 for judicial security, including
supplemental appropriations, totaled over $880 million and included
 $750.2 million appropriated for the Court Security account in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328) as part of the judiciary’s overall FY2023 budget;
 $112.5 million appropriated for the hardening of courthouse security in the Continuing
Appropriations and Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-180); and
 $19.4 million appropriated “to address threats to the Supreme Court of the United States”
by the Supreme Court Funding Act (P.L. 117-167).
For FY2024, the federal judiciary is seeking, as part of its annual budget request, $783.5 million for its
Court Security account (representing a 4.4% increase from the amount enacted for FY2023 by Congress
for regular appropriations for the same account).

Author Information

Barry J. McMillion

Analyst in American National Government




Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN12143 · VERSION 1 · NEW

---