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: Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Target Audience
Population: individuals who are immediate family members of US Supreme Court Justices and officers
Estimated Size: 100
- The bill specifically addresses the protection of certain individuals related to the Supreme Court, suggesting it impacts those closely related to Supreme Court officials such as the Chief Justice or Associate Justices.
- Since there are nine Supreme Court Justices, each may have immediate family members who could potentially benefit from this protection.
- Immediate family members typically include spouses, children, and sometimes parents or siblings, but the exact size varies for each Justice's family.
- The officers of the Supreme Court may include additional individuals who are not publicly defined, further enlarging the target group.
- Globally, the number of individuals directly impacted is very small since this bill only concerns individuals within the United States government structure.
Reasoning
- The primary individuals affected by the Supreme Court Police Parity Act of 2022 are the immediate family members of the nine Supreme Court Justices and a few officers of the Supreme Court. The total estimated number of individuals directly impacted is small, potentially around 100 people in total across the United States. Thus, the act focuses on a highly specialized, small segment of the population.
- The budget of $12,000,000 in the first year is likely adequate to initiate protection measures, considering the confined target group, and $131,875,000 over ten years suggests ongoing cost for protection enhancements, travel security, or other measures for these high-profile individuals.
- Given the nature of this policy, the primary impact is increased security and safety for these families, which may have a moderate impact on their perceived wellbeing due to decreased stress or fear related to security threats.
- Most US citizens will not experience any direct impact from this policy as it is confined to a very specific group tied to the highest court.
- However, perceptions of governmental expenditure on such a policy might bring indirect reflections in terms of public trust or opinions about security prioritization.
Simulated Interviews
Lawyer (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel grateful for the added protection as it reduces the stress and fear for our family's safety.
- I believe this policy is necessary given the increasing threats in today's political climate.
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 |
Business Executive (New York City, NY)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have never felt particularly at risk, so the policy won't change my daily life much.
- It seems like a reasonable measure if it helps my sibling feel safer.
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 |
Tech Worker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The additional security is appreciated, especially given the tension we sometimes experience.
- I think it's a good move for ensuring safety.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Accountant (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It feels reassuring that steps are being taken to protect our family.
- However, I'm concerned about the attention it might draw to us.
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 (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This reduces the worry about anything happening to my family given the high-profile nature of the job.
- I support measures that aim to protect our well-being.
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 |
Professor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I feel well-protected already, added security cannot hurt.
- It's good to know there are measures in place, especially during tumultuous times.
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 |
Journalist (Miami, FL)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's comforting to know there's increased security for our family.
- I hope this caters to the safety concerns while maintaining our privacy.
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 |
Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our family didn't feel directly threatened, so the policy is more of a reassurance than a necessity.
- I'm glad nonetheless there are systems to keep family members secure.
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 |
Teacher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel safer, which is a huge plus given the current state of affairs.
- It's a relief to know our families are being considered in safety measures.
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 |
Consultant (San Diego, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I didn't expect to need additional protection, but I appreciate it nonetheless.
- This proactive approach is beneficial for high-profile families.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $12200000 (Low: $8200000, High: $15250000)
Year 3: $12450000 (Low: $8400000, High: $15500000)
Year 5: $13000000 (Low: $8700000, High: $16000000)
Year 10: $14500000 (Low: $10000000, High: $17500000)
Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $30000000)
Key Considerations
- Personnel management and retention of qualified security staff might be challenging due to the need for around-the-clock protection.
- Political implications of perceived heightened security for the Supreme Court Justices’ families could attract public attention and scrutiny.
- Flexibility in budget planning will be essential due to potential changes in threat levels impacting resource allocation.
- Authority and coordination between different law enforcement agencies for joint operations may require clear legislation to avoid conflicts.