No Fencing at the United States Supreme Court Act
HB9038, titled the No Fencing at the United States Supreme Court Act, would bar the use of federal funds to install permanent fencing around the United States Supreme Court Building or the Supreme Court grounds. The bill applies both to the building perimeter and to the grounds described in federal law, but it does not prohibit repairs or replacement of fencing that already existed on the date of enactment.
In practical terms, the measure would limit future federal spending on new permanent security fencing at the Supreme Court while preserving the ability to maintain or replace existing barriers. The bill does not alter the Court’s jurisdiction, operations, or general security authority beyond restricting this specific use of federal funds.
The bill would amend federal spending authority by prohibiting appropriated federal funds from being used for new permanent fencing around the Supreme Court building or its grounds. It would not require removal of existing fencing and expressly allows repair or replacement of fencing already in place when the act takes effect. The main affected parties would be federal agencies responsible for Supreme Court security, facilities, and capital improvements, as well as contractors that might otherwise be used for such construction.
No committee debate or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment in the materials beyond the bill’s introduction. The bill’s title and text suggest a policy preference against expanding permanent physical barriers around the Court, while still accepting maintenance of existing security infrastructure. Because it was referred to committee and no further action is shown, the measure appears to be at an early stage with no documented support or opposition in the available record.
The central point of contention is likely whether permanent fencing around the Supreme Court is an appropriate security measure or an unnecessary physical barrier around a public institution. Supporters would likely emphasize preserving openness and limiting federal spending on new fortifications, while opponents would likely argue that permanent fencing is a legitimate security tool for protecting justices, staff, and visitors. The bill’s narrow exception for repair and replacement of existing fencing may also draw attention, since it permits some continued security work while blocking new permanent installations.