Note: At 2:20 p.m. Eastern Time, this article was updated to reflect new reporting as reflected by court filings against the suspect, now identified as Nicholas Roske.
<mediadc-video-embed data-state="{"cms.site.owner":{"_ref":"00000161-3486-d333-a9e9-76c6fbf30000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b93390000"},"cms.content.publishDate":1654705798951,"cms.content.publishUser":{"_ref":"00000162-07c3-d172-a563-4feb224a0001","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"cms.content.updateDate":1654705798951,"cms.content.updateUser":{"_ref":"00000162-07c3-d172-a563-4feb224a0001","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"rawHtml":"
var _bp = _bp||[]; _bp.push({ "div": "Brid_54705686", "obj": {"id":"27789","width":"16","height":"9","video":"1028420"} }); ","_id":"00000181-4420-df81-a381-66341e820001","_type":"2f5a8339-a89a-3738-9cd2-3ddf0c8da574"}”>Video EmbedThe arrest of a man with a firearm near the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday should emphasize security concerns for the nation’s highest-ranking judges.
The Washington Post reports that Nicholas Roske was angry with Kavanaugh over the draft Supreme Court opinion, leaked in early May, which suggests the court will soon overturn the Roe v. Wade pro-abortion ruling. According to an FBI affidavit, Roske exited a taxi cab outside Kavanaugh’s residence, stared at two deputy U.S. marshals, then walked off. Roske then called 911 to report his intent to kill Kavanaugh. He was then arrested.
Regardless of this particular case, as the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision approaches, and the potential for Roe v. Wade’s overturning with it, this incident portends escalating security concerns for Supreme Court justices.
Since the leak of the purported Dobbs opinion, the U.S. Marshals Service has been providing continuous protection for all nine Supreme Court justices at their residences. This complements the existing security sensors that are installed at judges’ residences when they are first nominated to join the court. These sensors can detect physical intrusions and certain other threats. While at their homes, the justices’ protection is provided by the Supreme Court Police’s Dignitary Protection Unit with the support of local police forces. Additional at-home security has recently become necessary in light of protests, illegal under federal law, outside of the justices’ homes. This latest incident should persuade the Marshals Service to restrict protests to neighborhood locations away from the immediate proximity of each justice’s residence. Considering a prospective assassin’s ability to hide among a crowd to gain proximity to a target, it’s strange that the Marshals Service hasn’t yet done so.
The broader challenge, however, is whether the justices’ security arrangements are sufficient in scale and effective integration. A top concern is who, when, and where the justices are protected. Because it varies.
While in Washington, D.C., justices fall under the protection of the Supreme Court Police. Static protection is provided by uniformed officers around the Supreme Court estate and mobile protection by the Dignitary Protection Unit. By virtue of its federal government status and liaison relationships with foreign police agencies, the Marshals Service protects justices when they are outside of Washington and traveling abroad. That said, a 2018 government submission showed that protection outside the district was not being provided automatically, but rather only “upon request by the marshal of the U.S. Supreme Court or a Supreme Court justice.” It’s unclear if this remains the case.
Regardless, one critical element to personal protection is consistency. A permanent security detail can adapt to a protectee’s habits and anticipate how better to provide security on an ongoing basis. But where, as now, justices have two different security details from the Supreme Court Police and the Marshals Service, respectively, this consistency is lost. So also is the critical need for smooth information sharing. Two different government entities mean two different bureaucracies, cultures, and, at least at some level, different threat-intelligence reporting.
While the Marshals Service has a standing 24/7 protective threat center, much like the Secret Service and Diplomatic Security Service, it is presumably often liaising with Supreme Court Police protection details rather than communicating with its own deputy marshals. The Marshals Service 2022 budget request quietly suggests that the Dignitary Protection Unit might not be adequately resourced. Asking for funding to add armor to presently unarmored vehicles, the request specifically notes that these vehicles can support the Supreme Court Police “as it builds out its” Dignitary Protection Unit. This language suggests recent enhancements to the unit.
While that’s obviously a positive development, it’s worth asking whether the Marshals Service should take on full-time responsibility for the justices’ personal protection. If capability is an issue, the Marshals Service could invite members of the Dignitary Protection Unit to join the Marshals Service on an expedited hiring track. Many of those officers, after all, will have the skills and experience to adapt to federal service. And it seems nonsensical that the Marshals Service provides full-time personal protection to the deputy attorney general and the secretary of education but not Chief Justice John Roberts and his fellow justices. I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt that the secretary of education receives as many credible threats as Supreme Court justices.
As controversy grows over the court’s activity, it’s worth asking whether the time has come to end the disparate and overlapping protection of its officers. A threat to any Supreme Court justice isn’t just a threat to them; it’s a threat to the Constitution and the rule of law. It must not be tolerated.
