Bill Overview
Title: Supreme Court Police Parity Act of 2022
Description: 2 This bill addresses security-related authorities involving the Supreme Court. Specifically, the 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. Further, the bill establishes penalties for willfully obstructing, resisting, or interfering with a member of the Supreme Court Police engaged in the performance of its protective functions.
Sponsors: Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Target Audience
Population: Immediate family of members and officers of the US Supreme Court
Estimated Size: 100
- The Supreme Court justices are key judicial figures whose safety and security are paramount, as they make decisions impacting the entirety of the United States.
- The immediate family members of Supreme Court justices are the primary direct beneficiaries in terms of increased security measures.
- Judicial officers and police associated with the Supreme Court also benefit indirectly as their roles are codified and strengthened, potentially improving job security and clarity of function.
- The general public could be considered affected due to their interest in a fully functioning and fearless judiciary, though this effect is more abstract.
Reasoning
- The primary direct beneficiaries of this policy are the immediate family members of the nine Supreme Court justices and relevant officers. Given the small number of direct beneficiaries, the policy is affordable within the set budget.
- The indirect beneficiaries include the Supreme Court Police who may see an increase in job security and clarity in their protective functions.
- Most US citizens will not feel a direct impact, although knowing that the judiciary is protected can provide an abstract sense of security.
- Some may oppose the policy due to budget allocation to a very small group when broader security concerns exist.
Simulated Interviews
Security Officer (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel that these protections are essential for our work and offer stability in knowing our roles are supported and backed by law.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retired (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a relief to have additional protection. These measures should have been in place a long time ago.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I understand the need for this protection, I don't feel it affects my daily life. There are greater security needs in our schools.
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 spouse (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With the increasing public profile and tension around court decisions, these protections make us feel safer at home and in public.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Journalist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the necessity for such measures, yet feel it draws resources away from broader, more pressing public safety issues.
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 |
Law student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone deeply interested in the legal field, I'm glad to see additional measures to ensure judges' safety, although it doesn't change my current wellbeing.
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 |
Political Analyst (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is pivotal in safeguarding our justice system's independence, but more could be done to balance resources across national security needs.
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 |
Stay-at-home parent (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm supportive of this policy as it brings us peace of mind knowing my spouse is protected and supported in their role.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired Justice (Seattle, WA)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel reassured that my former colleagues and their families receive the protection they need, which I didn't have during my tenure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Advocate for Public Safety (Miami, FL)
Age: 36 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While understanding the importance, it feels like resources could be more broadly distributed to benefit a larger segment of the population.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $15200000 (Low: $10500000, High: $20500000)
Year 3: $15400000 (Low: $11000000, High: $21000000)
Year 5: $15800000 (Low: $11500000, High: $22000000)
Year 10: $16500000 (Low: $12000000, High: $23000000)
Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Key Considerations
- The main concern is balancing security needs with budget constraints given the potentially high costs associated with increased security measures.
- This policy enhances perceived safety and reassurance within one of the core government branches with indirect public confidence benefits.
- Potential political considerations around expanding security measures for government officials.
- Operational effectiveness of the policy will depend on smooth integration of new personnel and technology