When the Supreme Court Asks for Money, Who Decides What It's Worth?
Two justices testified for more security funding. The real question: why does the only unaccountable branch of government get a blank check?
July 16, 2026 · Source: The Hill
When Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett walked into a hearing room this week to ask Congress for more money, they were doing something rare: the Supreme Court almost never has to explain itself to anyone.
They testified that threats against justices and their families have risen sharply, and that the Court needs a bigger budget to protect them. That's a real concern. Threats against public officials have increased across the country, and no one should be unsafe in their home.
But here's what makes this moment matter beyond security: it's a window into a much larger problem. The Supreme Court is the only branch of government with no term limits, no binding ethics code, and no meaningful accountability. When it asks for money, Congress can ask back. When it makes decisions that reshape American life, nobody can check it.
The justices are right that they deserve protection. But a country that takes accountability seriously should ask something in return.
Why This Matters Now
The Supreme Court has become more visible and more controversial in recent years. The overturning of Roe v. Wade, decisions on voting rights, affirmative action, and gun rights have all generated intense public reaction. Some of that reaction has turned hostile. The spike in threats is real.
But visibility cuts both ways. The Court's increasing prominence also means the American people deserve to know more about how it actually works. Who funds justices' security details? How are ethics complaints handled? When a justice receives a gift or has a conflict of interest, who finds out? Right now: almost nobody.
This budget hearing is a chance to connect two things: the Court's legitimate need for security and the public's legitimate need for transparency and accountability.
What the Common Good Party Sees Here
Our position on Supreme Court reform is direct: the Court is broken in ways Congress can fix. We propose 18-year term limits for justices, a binding ethics code with real teeth, expansion to 18 seats, and a supermajority requirement to overturn precedent.
None of that is anti-justice or anti-security. It's pro-democracy. It means the highest court in the land operates under the same accountability standards as every other institution in government.
When the justices ask for protection, which they should have, Congress should use that moment to ask: Will you accept binding ethics rules? Will you commit to transparency about gifts, travel, and conflicts of interest? Will you support structural reforms that restore public confidence in the Court?
Right now, the answer is effectively no. The Court decides its own ethics rules. It publishes disclosure forms but resists the kind of binding oversight that applies to federal judges below it. Justices can accept unlimited gifts from wealthy donors. Some have ruled on cases involving their own financial interests.
Security matters. Accountability matters more.