Bill Overview
Title: No Fencing at the United States Supreme Court Act
Description: This bill prohibits the use of federal funds to install permanent fencing around the perimeter of the Supreme Court Building or the Supreme Court grounds.
Sponsors: Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by the security measures around the U.S. Supreme Court
Estimated Size: 500000
- The Supreme Court is a central institution in the U.S., and changes to its security infrastructure can impact those who visit or work there regularly.
- Visitors to the Supreme Court might experience changes due to the absence of fencing, affecting their security or ease of access.
- Employees of the Supreme Court could experience changes regarding their workplace security.
- Public confidence or trust in the security or accessibility of significant federal institutions can indirectly affect the larger U.S. population.
Reasoning
- The policy mostly affects people who work at, visit, or live near the Supreme Court. Its direct impact on national well-being is likely modest due to its narrow scope, though it could influence perceptions of national security.
- Visitors and employees at the Supreme Court might have varying opinions based on their views about security measures and transparency.
- The policy's impact will likely be negligible for people who don't interact with the Supreme Court building regularly.
Simulated Interviews
Supreme Court Employee (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the fencing provides an essential layer of security.
- Without fencing, we might see more protests closer to the building, which could be disruptive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Tour Guide (Maryland)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The absence of fencing will make access easier for my tours, but I worry about safety.
- It's important that tourists have a smooth and safe visit.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Protester (Virginia)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Removing fencing makes it easier for us to be heard and closer to national symbols.
- Safety is a concern, but the openness facilitates better expression of free speech.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (New York)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fencing makes the Court feel less accessible to the public.
- Removing it should be balanced with ensuring security isn't compromised.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Law Student (California)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone entering the legal field, I believe the appearance and accessibility of the Court are important.
- Permanent fencing seems contrary to public transparency.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Supreme Court Justice (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The presence of visible security measures is reassuring to many visitors.
- Removing fences requires careful consideration of alternative security strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Tourist (Texas)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm okay with no fencing if it means easier entry.
- Security is still important, but I assume alternatives are adequate.
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 |
Security Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fencing is a symbolic and practical measure that must be balanced with public access.
- Removing it could increase security risks that have to be addressed in other ways.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Remote Worker (Tennessee)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Supreme Court does not affect my daily life significantly.
- Whether there's fencing or not doesn't matter much to me personally.
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 |
Resident (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Less fencing could mean less obstruction in my neighborhood when events occur.
- I hope it won't compromise safety. Maybe more visible police presence would help.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The decision could impact public perceptions of government spending priorities and the security of critical institutions.
- The measure reflects a political decision rather than an economic strategy, making direct financial impacts minimal.