Protection for justices’ families stalled over inclusion of law clerks’ relatives

WASHINGTON — The Senate easily passed bipartisan legislation earlier this week extending police protection to the family members of Supreme Court justices, but that bill appears stalled amid disagreements over whether to also protect the families of court personnel.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, introduced the bill after the leaking of a draft Supreme Court opinion overturning the landmark abortion decision Roe vs. Wade. The leak sparked protests outside the homes of several justices.

“The threats to justices remain high because emotions are high, and the chief justice has asked Congress to take action to protect the justices and their families by simply providing the same sort of authorities that the Capitol Police has to provide protection to members of Congress and our families,” Cornyn said on the Senate floor this week.

Under current law, the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court police have the authority to protect justices at all times and also are authorized to protect officers or employees of the court while those individuals are performing official duties.

Cornyn’s bill would extend protection to the justices’ immediate family members. The Senate passed it by unanimous consent, sending the measure to the House, which has yet to take it up.

The debate in Congress continues as America awaits a final opinion. Justices are scheduled to release one or more opinions on Monday, but which ones are unknown.

Rep. Greg Stanton, D-Ariz., has proposed extending police protection to not just justices’ relatives, but also the family members of court officers and employees if the Marshal deems it necessary.

That proposal comes after opponents of abortion rights have engaged in speculation about who might have leaked the draft opinion in an effort to influence the final outcome.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said following the leak that it was likely the work of a “left-wing law clerk” and speculated generally that the person probably worked for Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“Because she’s the most partisan of the justices and so she’s the most likely to hire wild-eyed partisans as clerks,” Cruz said. “I have no evidence of that, I’m just making an inference.”

Some activists have gone further and posted information online identifying individual clerks as the likely leakers.

In one case, a Twitter user with nearly 250,000 followers posted a thread arguing the leaker was probably a specific clerk for Justice Stephen Breyer, posting identifying information and photos of the clerk and her husband.

Such actions are commonly criticized as “doxxing” someone.

Stanton said in a statement the safety of public servants and their families should have bipartisan support.

“Multiple court staff members and their families have been doxed and baselessly accused over the last week,” Stanton said. “The leak should be fully investigated by the Court and prosecuted by the Department of Justice, not vigilantes.”

Cornyn objected to Stanton’s proposal, however, and said it has no chance of becoming law.

“This partisan bill in the House ignores the good faith work that was being done here in the Senate to build consensus and expands this legislation to include divisive provisions, like potentially extending police protection to the very person who leaked the draft opinion,” Cornyn said.

The discussion could provide new impetus to broader, bipartisan legislation aimed at protecting judges, but Cornyn noted that proposal hasn’t moved with the speed of his recent bill. The debate also comes as Republicans have criticized some top Democrats for not strongly denouncing the protests outside the justices’ homes.

During a committee hearing on Thursday, Cornyn asked his fellow members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to press the House to quickly pass the bipartisan Senate bill. He described Stanton’s proposal as “misguided.”

“There’s some 40 law clerks on the court. Nobody knows who they are,” Cornyn said. “They’re not protesting at their house.”

Cornyn said two current justices have young children and incoming Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will soon make three.

“I shudder to think what might happen if the Supreme Court members and their family are denied this sort of protection, which the Senate has unanimously supported, because it gets slow-walked in the House,” Cornyn said.