Newly discovered documents show that prior to the court’s controversial decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court sought to strengthen judicial protections while reducing public scrutiny of court conduct. It’s clear.
The heavily redacted memorandum of agreement (MOA) on security is dated March 2022 and was obtained by the Guardian after it was recently exposed by governmentattic.com.
The document indicates that the U.S. Marshals Service and the Supreme Court of the United States Police Department (SCUSPD) have agreed to increase cooperation and information sharing and provide protection for retired judges upon request. It also mandated that the costs of enhanced USMS cooperation be borne by the USMS and the Department of Justice, rather than being added to the judicial budget.
Importantly, the MOA requires the court to maintain “exclusive legal custody and control” of all security-related records, including those in the possession of the USMS. This means that these records are explicitly exempted from Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) requirements and hidden from public view.
The MOA emphasizes that the temporary possession of documents by the USMS “does not deprive the Supreme Court of complete and exclusive legal control of such records.”
Gabe Ross, executive director of Fix the Court, a nonprofit group that advocates for greater transparency and accountability in the Supreme Court, said the record-keeping arrangements “make it impossible for you, me, and others to continue requesting travel.” It sounds like Scotus is pissed about it.” Judges’ records are stored via Feuer, and they are trying to avoid sharing them under the law. ”
Furthermore, he added: “However, Feuer by nature tends to look back in time, often in terms of years, so for example, “Judge X brought a deputy sheriff with him to give a speech at Harvard.” It’s hard to imagine what kind of impact knowing this will have on security.” It will be 2023. ”
The MOA was filed amid public perception that the Supreme Court remains at historic lows. Decisions by the conservative supermajority court have had a major impact on American life in recent years on a variety of issues, including abortion rights, the environment, and the government’s role in regulating business and industry.
There are also growing concerns about safety around courtrooms. In June 2022, police thwarted a plot to kill Judge Brett Kavanaugh and arrested a man who brought a pistol, knife, zip ties, and pepper spray to the judge’s home with the intent to kill him.
Notably, this memorandum of understanding was signed after deliberations in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Medical Institution began on December 1, 2021. The case concluded in September 2021 after an injunction against Texas’ so-called “heartbeat” abortion bill, SB8, was denied. , and after a court ruled that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s imposition of vaccine mandates on large employers was illegal.
This also comes as Chuck Grassley said in a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 2, 2021, that if the court chooses to outlaw Roe v. Wade, “Democrats and left-wing activists This also happened after the group warned that the group was inciting a “revolution.” In the same statement, the Republican senator from Iowa also conflated political violence with political protests, such as the 2020 assassination of federal judge Esther Salas’ son Daniel Anderl.
“Judges and their families have been injured and killed. We have also seen courthouses besieged by left-wing groups in places like Portland, Oregon,” he wrote.
Mr. Grassley’s statement was in support of the sweeping bill, entitled the Daniel Anderle Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2021. The bill, passed the following year, prohibited data brokers and the federal government from publishing personally identifying information about federal and Supreme Court justices online. Agency.
The law was passed despite opposition from public interest groups who said it could chill free speech and stifle criticism of the judiciary.
In the weeks following the signing of the MOA, Supreme Court leaks heralded the judicial nullification of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs in June of that year.
Paul Collins, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts, said MOA’s “timeline” is “interesting.”
“It seems to me that the signing of the MOA is at least partially related to the progress of some of the Supreme Court’s most high-profile cases, which the Sheriff’s Department and Supreme Court Police Department are protecting.” “It suggests that there may be some consideration of court cases when developing plans,” he said.
“Because the court is unlikely to step away from deciding highly controversial issues anytime soon, the Supreme Court may tend to provide increasingly stronger protections for judges over time.”
The MOA was enacted at a time when spending on courtroom security began to steadily increase, and judges have requested and received increases every year since then.
For example, in March 2024, the USMS requested $38 million in funding for judicial security and an additional $10 million in funding to comply with the provisions of the Daniel Anderle Act.
A stopgap funding measure passed in late December 2024 also included a combined $25 million for the USSMS and SCUSPD to provide 24-hour security at the private residences of nine Supreme Court justices.
MOA blames increased security for “threats against federal judges that skyrocketed during the first Trump administration, reaching an all-time high in 2022 and declining in 2023.”
The MOA continues, “As a result, protecting the safety of judges and their families has become a priority for Congress, the Sheriff’s Office, and the Supreme Court Police Department.”
The Guardian has contacted the USSMS and the Supreme Court Press Office for comment. The court did not respond.
A USMS spokesperson wrote that winter storm conditions in Washington, D.C., may make it difficult to provide comment from appropriate personnel.
Collins said the heightened risk to federal judges is largely due to Donald Trump, who has frequently criticized judges and the broader judicial system amid ongoing trials and cases.
“This increased intimidation of judges can be directly tied to President Trump’s personal attacks on judges and their families, something no president has ever done before,” he wrote.
“There is little reason to believe that President Trump will change strategy in his second term with regard to his willingness to attack judges and even their families. This makes protecting judges and their families especially important.”
