Policy

Supreme Court Justices Make Their Own Security Choices, Documents Reveal

Watchdog group says domestic travel policy should be tightened

The sun sets on the U.S. Supreme Court, Thursday, Dec. 8, 2016. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call file photo)
The sun sets on the U.S. Supreme Court, Thursday, Dec. 8, 2016. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call file photograph)

Posted March xiv, 2018 at 10:00am

Updated 03/14/xviii at 11:06 a.m. | Supreme Court justices only get security protection during domestic trips exterior the Washington metropolitan expanse when they request information technology, according to a U.Due south. Marshals Service policy unveiled Wed past a court watchdog group.

Set up the Court, a nonpartisan group that advocates accountability and transparency at the Supreme Courtroom, obtained the security policy and hundreds of pages of related records through a Liberty of Information Human action lawsuit. The documents are an official and more detailed peek within a security organisation that gives justices wide discretion when it comes to their protection.

At merely over one page long, the security policy highlights a need for more than comprehensive security protocols for justices, said Gabe Roth, the grouping'southward executive director. The lack of some requirements is concerning given potential threats and the "fading wellness" of several of the crumbling justices, he said.

The group likewise used other documents it obtained well-nigh the protection of justices for domestic travel in July 2015 — a $69,039 cost to taxpayers — to confirm that justices don't always use the marshals for security. Names of the justices were redacted but the grouping pieced together details from other sources that underscore the potential risks.

The Supreme Court did not immediately return requests for comment.

Main Justice John G. Roberts Jr. manifestly did not seek protection from deputy marshals for the U.S. leg of a July 2015 trip to Japan, the group found.

Since several lines of redacted text appear in document fields about threat assessments, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor might have faced threats on trips to New York and Massachusetts for which they did request marshals' protection, the group said.

And details nearly protection of Justice Antonin Scalia during his fateful hunting trip to western Texas in February 2016 when he died show marshals were unaware of his potential failing health at the time and were absent from the scene for hours after his death, co-ordinate to the documents.

"The public should be confident that Supreme Court justices are well-protected, both inside their building and when they venture out into the world," Roth said. "That the justices can decline protection when they travel to the most far-flung places in the country does not seem advisable given the expansive reach and resources of the U.Southward. Marshals Service and the fact that so many justices cull to remain on the bench well into sometime age."

Marshals Service spokesman Drew Wade said in an email the agency takes its responsibility for protection of federal judicial officials "very seriously. While we do non talk over our specific security measures, nosotros continuously review the security measures in place for all federal judges and take appropriate steps to provide boosted protection when it is warranted."

The Supreme Court received $76 million in discretionary spending in financial 2017 for high court salaries and expenses, which includes security activities for the justices and the building. The court's fiscal 2019 asking seeks $84 million, in part to expand existing security activities.

"I think it would behoove Congress to observe out how much information technology would cost for different levels of security," Roth said, whether that exist 24-hour, circular-the-clock security when justices travel domestically, or just on certain trips to remote areas.

Recommendations

The Supreme Court Police force handles protection for the justices in Washington and coordinates security when they travel away, Fix the Court said. Simply the Marshals Service, which is function of the Justice Department, picks upward the security for domestic travel and is reimbursed by the court.

Roth suggested changes to the service's "policy directives" for the justices then that more than contact data is required. Those directives state the bureau will keep addresses and other contact information for the court members when they travel, but only "with the justices' permission." And the marshals will notify local police force enforcement agencies that a justice volition exist temporarily in their jurisdiction "to the extent that the justice permits."

"Information technology's having individuals charged with protecting and defending court officials know where they are, should an emergency arise," Roth said. "I don't call up it should be upwardly to the individual justice when local authorities are notified."

Roth said the documents for 12 trips in July 2015 show the justices have different attitudes toward security. Sotomayor, for case, obviously requested protection when attention a theater performance in New York and Ginsburg sought guards for a night out at the opera. Roberts did not appear in whatever travel security requests, according to the documents obtained by Fix the Court, though it was unclear who sought security for two of the trips.

Scalia in Texas

Documents related to Scalia'southward trip to Texas — which concluded with his death that threw Washington into months of political drama — offer the starkest movie of how justices command their security.

Scalia initially did not inquire for protection during the trip, but three days ahead of his departure he sought assist while changing planes in Houston on Feb. 12, Roth found in the documents. The justice, who hunted for blue quail that afternoon, did non asking security at the Cibolo Creek Ranch in the Large Bend region of West Texas.

The documents testify it is highly likely that deputy marshals in the Western District of Texas, based in San Antonio, were not aware Scalia was in their district the weekend he died, Roth said. Deputies from the Southern District of Texas, based in Houston, helped with the airdrome transfer, and also did non inform local law enforcement of the justice's stay, Roth said.

More details from the documents: A housekeeper got no response in Scalia's suite the side by side morn. When people entered his room at 11 a.m., they found him unresponsive. The Marshals Service written report states that marshals from the Western District of Texas were contacted by the local sheriff's part at 12:41 p.k. They arrived at 2:38 p.k.

The marshals issued a argument that they responded immediately upon notification of Scalia's death. In an e-mail about that incident obtained by Fix the Court, i Marshals Service official commented to another: "Permit'due south hope information technology doesn't abound legs."