WASHINGTON – House on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed legislation that would extend police protection to the immediate families of Supreme Court judges, passing a bill for President Biden at a time of growing concern over threats to judges, and that a potentially momentous abortion decision is approaching.
The vote was 396 to 27, with all opposition coming from Democrats, who tried unsuccessfully to extend protections to the families of court employees. The action sent the measure to Mr. They ask him to sign it.
The legislation, passed by the Senate earlier this month, passed quickly in the House in recent days after a gunman was arrested last week near the home of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of Maryland. The man told police he intended to kill justice because he was angry at a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion suggesting the court was preparing to revoke abortion rights and worried him. that Judge Kavanaugh votes in favor of weakening gun laws in the aftermath of the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas.
The draft opinion on abortion has sparked protests outside court houses and prompted police to erect a fence around the courthouse building and take other measures to secure it.
“It is imperative that judges be free from fear of violence or physical intimidation in making decisions based on the Constitution and the law as it applies to the facts of the case before you,” said Rep. Ted Lieu, a Democrat from California. , on the judges. urged the passage of the law. “This is essential for the rule of law.”
While members of both parties strongly supported the legislation, it provoked bitter political recriminations when Republicans accused House Democrats of walking slowly, trying to intimidate judges and not taking the threat to members of the court seriously. their families.
“It shouldn’t have been so hard or so long,” House Rep. Kevin McCarthy of the House, a Republican House leader, said Tuesday. “He should not have taken a threat against Judge Kavanaugh to force the action.”
Democrats said they wanted to add protection to employees and other court workers who could also be at risk of violence, but Republicans said it would be onerous and unnecessary because workers are relatively little known to the public. Republicans in the Senate said they would oppose the measure if the House expanded it.
“This could include 24-hour security details for everyone, from employees to computer staff and their spouses, children, siblings and parents,” said Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican and lawmaker. along with Democratic Sen. Chris Coons. of Delaware. Mr. Cornyn said the House position was a stagnant tactic.
But Democrats said the identities of some court staff, in addition to judges, have been publicly revealed and deserve the same consideration as judges and their families. After the draft abortion decision leaked last month, there was much public speculation as to whether specific officials could be to blame.
Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat and majority leader, accused Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican and minority leader, and Mr. Cornyn was “ignorant of the facts or ignored the facts” in suggesting that Supreme Court employees and employees were not public figures and did not face the same level of threats.
He added that he had been informed of the violent threats made against the employees, but said that the Democratic leaders of the House would give in and approve the measure of the Senate so that it could be sent quickly to the president.
“No one wants to protect Supreme Court justices,” Hoyer said.
Judges currently have security details available, and the man who threatened the life of Judge Kavanaugh was deterred by the presence of U.S. marshals near the courthouse. But supporters of the legislation said it was necessary to make it clear that family members could also receive protection and align the safety of judges and their families more with that provided to members of Congress and the executive branch, who have police protection. regular.
The court is expected to rule in a Mississippi abortion case in the coming weeks, and a draft opinion released by Politico on May 2 suggested that the majority of the court was prepared to overturn the historical judgment Roe v. a decision that is expected to provoke a strong backlash and protests.
Threats against judges at all levels have been on the rise and the safety of judges and their families has been receiving more attention after a series of attacks, most recently the murder this month of a judge in the retired state of Wisconsin who was killed by a man he had convicted. , which police said was also targeting other public officials.
Following the murder of her son and the injury of her husband in 2020 by a lawyer who had appeared before her, U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas of New Jersey has pushed for legislation to protect the privacy of federal judges by preserving personal information such as addresses. out of databases and out of the internet. The gunman, who later committed suicide, had attacked Judge Salas at his home.
The measure has the backing of the federal judiciary and bipartisan support in Congress, but has stalled on attempts by Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, to extend privacy protections to lawmakers, a step that many of his colleagues are reluctant to do so. Control groups also consider the legislation to be too broad. Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online.
Despite criticism of Democrats, Republicans credited them with finally agreeing to pass legislation.
“The good news is that this bill will finally be passed and will give our highest court judges the protection they and their families deserve,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican. “Better late than never.”