Bill Overview
Title: Supreme Court Families Security Act of 2022
Description: This bill grants the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police the authority to protect any member of the immediate family, or employee, of the Chief Justice, any Associate Justice, or any officer of the Supreme Court if the Marshal determines such protection to be necessary.
Sponsors: Rep. Stanton, Greg [D-AZ-9]
Target Audience
Population: People related to the U.S. Supreme Court (Judges and Officers)
Estimated Size: 150
- The bill authorizes protection for the families and employees of the Chief Justice and associate justices of the Supreme Court and other officers.
- Individuals who directly fall under the security staff and judicial roles at the Supreme Court will be impacted.
- Family members of these individuals will also experience a change due to enhanced security measures.
Reasoning
- The Supreme Court Families Security Act of 2022 impacts a very small and specific group of people, primarily those connected to the members of the Supreme Court in a professional or familial capacity. This group is estimated to be around 150 individuals.
- Given the limited budget and scope of this policy, it would primarily impact those in close proximity to Supreme Court justices, either by being family members or employees.
- The wider population outside of this group is unlikely to be directly impacted, as the policy is narrowly tailored and does not address general public concerns.
Simulated Interviews
Law Clerk (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the additional security provided by this policy.
- Considering the heightened political climate, this is a necessary step to ensure our safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Associate Justice (Washington D.C.)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security for my family is a top priority, and this measure provides peace of mind.
- Could benefit from more transparency regarding how decisions are made for necessary protection.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Law Professor (New York, NY)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I understand the intent, I don't see how this affects my own wellbeing.
- The policy seems reasonable given the specific threats faced by the Justices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Civic Activist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This feels like preferential treatment for the elite.
- I believe public resources should focus on broader social issues.
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 |
Retired Paralegal (Richmond, VA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to know these measures are in place, though they don't directly impact me anymore.
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 |
Chief Financial Officer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy makes daily life slightly more cumbersome but is appreciated.
- Peace of mind about family safety is invaluable, especially in these times.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Supreme Court Security Officer (Washington D.C.)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy reinforces the necessity and impact of my job.
- I'm proud to contribute to the safety of our judiciary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired Librarian (Columbus, OH)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't follow the court's logistics, but I suppose protection is good for them.
- Hope the funds are used wisely.
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 |
Civil Rights Attorney (Boston, MA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerns about funds that could go to broader public legal services.
- Hope this policy doesn't set a precedent for misuse of protection laws.
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 |
Federal Judge (Denver, CO)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy feels prudent, as the threats can be quite serious.
- I'm supportive of any measures that ensure the judiciary's functionality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $8000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $8200000 (Low: $7200000, High: $10200000)
Year 3: $8400000 (Low: $7400000, High: $10400000)
Year 5: $8800000 (Low: $7800000, High: $10800000)
Year 10: $9600000 (Low: $8600000, High: $11600000)
Year 100: $13000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- While necessary, the expansion of protection services will require ongoing assessments to balance costs with security needs.
- Coordination with the Department of Justice or Homeland Security could help limit redundancy in protection services.
- Inflationary pressures might increase costs for personnel and equipment over time.
- Complexities in coordinating services across various family members' locations can increase expense variability.