Bill Overview
Title: Supreme Court Police Parity Act of 2022
Description: 2 This bill grants the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police the authority to protect any member of the immediate family of the Chief Justice, any Associate Justice, or any officer of the Supreme Court if the Marshal determines that such protection is necessary.
Sponsors: Rep. Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA-50]
Target Audience
Population: Immediate family members of U.S. Supreme Court Justices and officers
Estimated Size: 100
- The bill specifically targets the protection of immediate family members of the Chief Justice, Associate Justices, and officers of the Supreme Court.
- There are 9 Supreme Court Justices, each potentially having multiple immediate family members eligible for protection under this bill.
- This might include spouses, children, and possibly other dependents of the Justices and officers.
- If we assume each Justice and officer has an average immediate family size of 3 to 5, this provides an estimated number of people affected.
Reasoning
- The primary beneficiaries of the Supreme Court Police Parity Act are immediate family members of the Supreme Court Justices and the court officers. However, awareness and impact outside this small group will be limited due to the specific nature of the bill.
- With an estimated 100 individuals directly affected by the policy, any national-level effects or perceptions are likely negligible, and the policy's direct impact on public wellbeing will be minimal.
- The standard scoring of 1-10 in Cantril wellbeing provides a nuanced view of subjective well-being across different simulated individuals, reflecting diverse opinions and awareness levels.
- This policy might have indirect effects on public perception of Supreme Court security but is unlikely to change wellbeing scores for the general American population.
Simulated Interviews
Lawyer (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think ensuring the safety of our Supreme Court Justices is crucial; this policy seems reasonable.
- However, it doesn't significantly affect me or my work in any direct way.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Military Officer (New York)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy makes sense but doesn't impact me at all. My concerns are more about community safety in general.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Supreme Court Officer's spouse (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a relief. Knowing that there is a provision for our protection is reassuring.
- I've always worried about public exposure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Law Professor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While interesting from an academic perspective, this policy doesn’t affect my personal life.
- I do discuss these types of legislative measures in my classes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Political Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's interesting to see this focus on the judiciary, but it feels niche.
- Not expected to impact the wider public in tangible ways.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Supreme Court Justice's daughter (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad this policy addresses security for Justice families. Living with constant worry is not pleasant.
- Gives me peace of mind.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
High School Teacher (Austin, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A useful policy for discussion in class, but I'm unaffected personally.
- Always glad to see security measures in place for important figures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Supreme Court Justice's son (Boston, MA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security has been a concern for my family; this policy seems like it will help.
- I hope it’s implemented effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Grad Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Interesting as a case study, but doesn't impact my daily life.
- Important to protect members of the judiciary, though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Activist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that this might further isolate the judiciary from the public.
- Important security considerations, but could complicate public engagement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $26000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $31000000)
Year 3: $26500000 (Low: $21500000, High: $32000000)
Year 5: $27500000 (Low: $22500000, High: $33000000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Year 100: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $40000000)
Key Considerations
- The number of family members actually requiring protection can vary and impact costs significantly.
- Potential legal or privacy challenges might arise due to the nature of extending police protection to private family members.