Online reports indicate that a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court was the victim of a swatting incident on Wednesday evening.

A recording posted by a self-identified Washington, D.C., photographer purportedly documents a police dispatcher ordering a police response to the home of a "high-priority resident of the county."

'The proper response will be putting the offender in prison for many, many years.'

The dispatcher informs the officer that personnel have been unable to call the complainant back, indicating that it may be a swatting incident.

"Units responding to suspicious noise. Be advised, we have not been able to get an answer on call back to the complainant's phone number. Unknown if it's going to be a swatting situation," she says.

"Just made contact with security that's on scene," a male officer says. "They should be outside in an Explorer. He said he hasn't heard anything. We're just going to meet up with him first, just to go over anything."

The photographer reported that the victim of the swatting incident was Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) responded to the report but did not appear to confirm it.

"Swatting is an attempt to get an innocent person killed — in this case, a sitting Supreme Court Justice," he wrote. "The proper response will be putting the offender in prison for many, many years."

The Fairfax County Police Department confirmed to Blaze News in an email on Thursday that officers had responded to a swatting incident at the home of a SCOTUS justice but did not identify the justice by name:

Yesterday evening at approximately 9:02 p.m., officers responded to a swatting call at the residence of U.S. Supreme Court justice in Fairfax County.

The call was received through the department’s non-emergency line. Officers immediately coordinated with Supreme Court Police personnel assigned to the residence and quickly determined that the report was fictitious. No additional police resources were utilized.

The SCOTUS public information officer did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

Barrett was nominated to the court by President Donald Trump in 2020 during his first term in office.

After the president won his second election, members nominated to his Cabinet reported being the victims of swatting incidents in Nov. 2024.

"The FBI is aware of numerous bomb threats and swatting incidents targeting incoming administration nominees and appointees, and we are working with our law enforcement partners," read a statement from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at the time.

This is a developing story.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Journalist exposes explosive insider details of SCOTUS meltdown that almost killed Dobbs: ‘The walls were shaking’

Mollie Hemingway is the editor in chief at the Federalist and is known for her in-depth reporting on the Supreme Court.

On a recent episode of “Relatable” with Allie Beth Stuckey, Hemingway shared insider information about the wild circumstances leading up to the Dobbs decision — the landmark U.S. case that overturned Roe v. Wade and pushed abortion back to the states — including the Supreme Court justice who threw an epic tantrum behind closed doors.

“Everyone knew that [Roe v. Wade] was a problem. Everyone knew from the moment it was decided,” Hemingway says. “Even people on the left admitted this case, this decision isn’t even trying to be constitutional law. ... But then because the left so greatly wanted to believe that they had a right to kill unborn children, they just moved heaven and earth to keep that decision, even when it shouldn't have really been lasting for one year, much less 50 years.”

When the Court finally decided to hear the long overdue case, five justices were in favor of overturning the ruling. Justice Samuel Alito was assigned by Clarence Thomas to write the majority opinion.

What Alito produced was a “masterpiece work” — so much so that the dissenting judges were “shocked by how exhaustive it was.”

“There was no argument left standing,” Hemingway says.

Three months after the initial distribution, however, Alito’s draft opinion was infamously leaked, igniting a furious uproar among the left.

“We know that immediately the justices faced death threats, serious threats on their lives. They all had to be moved or be under a great deal of protection, increase their security posture,” Hemingway says, “because if any one of them had been killed ... that would have meant that the Dobbs decision would not have been handed down in the way it was. There would no longer have been a majority there.”

Allie and Hemingway speculate that this could have been the sinister intention of the leaker — to either get a justice killed or “gin up” enough outrage to pressure the weaker judges to join the dissent and eliminate the majority.

But none of the majority justices relented, despite the threats on their lives.

After the leak and the subsequent threats, the dissenting justices still hadn’t written their dissent.

“They were delaying the dissemination of this,” Hemingway says.

This was problematic because the majority justices were facing death threats.

“Alito asks if they can wrap it up because left-wing activists have a motivation to kill them, and that’s a concern to the conservative justices, and they wouldn’t,” Hemingway recounts.

Justice Neil Gorsuch requested that the dissenting justices at least give them a date by which they’d have their dissent complete, but they refused.

Justice Stephen Breyer, however, while on the dissenting side, was “the person most likely” to write an opinion that would expedite the process, Hemingway says, because “he was a decent, nice guy who cared about his colleagues.”

“According to my sources, Kagan goes to his chambers and screams at him not to in any way accommodate this request. As one person put it, ‘The walls were shaking,’” Hemingway shares.

Eventually, the dissenting justices relented and agreed to have their dissent ready by June 1.

“Meaning that the [concurring] justices would only have their lives threatened on a continuous day-to-day basis for one month,” Hemingway says.

However, when they finally delivered their dissent, they included a “totally unnecessary” reference to “a New York State rifle decision.”

“So they put that in there just so that they could delay it even further,” Hemingway says, noting that the final Dobbs decision wasn’t released until June 24.

“This is day-to-day attacks on these justices’ lives. You have Amy Coney Barrett having to put on a bulletproof vest in front of her children. You have justices being moved to secure locations or having to greatly increase their security fencing,” she continues, “and it seemed to the justices and their staff that the left-wing justices really didn’t care about what they were going through.”

To hear more of the interview, watch the episode above.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Conservative lawyer John Eastman punished AGAIN for representing Trump

Conservative legal scholar John Eastman, founding director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, was among the lawyers whose lives and livelihoods were targeted for ruination after they provided President Donald Trump with counsel on cases dealing with election illegalities and fraud following the 2020 election.

Years later, Eastman is still fighting off attacks by liberals apparently keen to ensure that Trump's constitutionally guaranteed right to legal representation doesn't go unpunished.

'This lawfare/barfare is metastasizing before our very eyes.'

The California Supreme Court upheld a decision by a lower court's judges on Wednesday to permanently disbar Eastman in the Golden State.

The state bar accused Eastman in 2023 of violating his obligations as an attorney in two ways when working "with Trump and others to promote the idea that the outcome of the election was in question and had been stolen from Trump as the result of fraud, disregard of state election law, and misconduct by election officials."

"First, he provided legal advice, formulated legal strategies, and engaged in litigation based on, and made public statements propounding, allegations of election fraud he knew, or was grossly negligent in not knowing, were false," alleged the bar.

Eric Thayer/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Eastman's second alleged violation, according to the bar, was:

He provided, and proposed actions based on, legal advice regarding the unilateral authority of the Vice President to disregard or delay the counting of electoral votes that he knew, or was grossly negligent in not knowing, was contrary to and unsupported by the historical record and established legal authority and precedent, including the Electoral Count Act and the Twelfth Amendment, such that no reasonable attorney with expertise in constitutional or election law would have concluded that the Vice President was legally authorized to take the actions respondent proposed.

Altogether, the bar alleged 11 counts of misconduct.

Eastman, who initially began working with an election integrity effort requested by Trump in early September 2020, denied many of the bar's allegations including several of those above and the claim that there was no evidence of election fraud or illegality that could have affected the outcome.

Judge Yvette Roland — appointed to the State Bar Court by former Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in 2018 — recommended in March 2024 that Eastman be disbarred for his alleged election subversion efforts, resulting in the revocation of his license.

"Eastman failed to uphold his primary duty of honesty and breached his ethical obligations by presenting falsehoods to bolster his legal arguments," wrote Roland.

While waiting for the California Supreme Court to weigh in on her ruling, Eastman, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, asked Roland to reactivate his law license during the appeal process, noting that he needed to be able to represent clients and pay his own legal bills.

The Democrat appointee denied his request, claiming that he had "failed to show that he poses no significant threat to the public."

The California Supreme Court ultimately denied Eastman's petition for review on Wednesday, ordering his disbarment from the practice of law in California and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys. Adding insult to injury, the court ordered Eastman to pay $5,000 in sanctions to the State Bar of California Client Security Fund.

Randall Miller, Eastman's attorney during his disciplinary proceedings, said the outcome "raises pivotal constitutional concerns regarding the limits of state regulation of attorney speech."

Miller added that Eastman will ask the U.S. Supreme Court "to repudiate this threat to the rule of law and our nation’s adversarial system of justice."

Eastman confirmed to Blaze News that he will be filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court and underscored that the significance of a possible win "goes well beyond my particular case."

"As we have recently seen, leftist/activist bars are targeting current attorneys at the Department of Justice for simply doing their jobs in defending President Trump’s executive orders," said Eastman. "This lawfare/barfare is metastasizing before our very eyes and will only get worse if the Supreme Court does not take decisive action to put a stop to it."

Jeff Clark, vice president of litigation at the Oversight Project, said that the California Supreme Court's decision "is a travesty."

"John represented the President in litigation challenging an election. That’s all. He lied about nothing. Reasonable minds can disagree about the 2020 election," wrote Clark. "He did what lawyers are supposed to do — represent disfavored individuals. And make no mistake, the elites, especially in bar apparatuses, disfavor and hate President Trump and anyone associated with him with a burning passion."

"No one representing Vice President Gore was disbarred for losing Bush v. Gore where the whole partial county-specific recount strategy Democrat lawyers devised there was ruled an unconstitutional violation of equal protection," continued Clark. "Two-tiered system of justice and of bar discipline."

This is hardly the only front in Eastman's battle with Democrat-aligned lawfare. In addition to having his law license suspended in the District of Columbia, he was arrested in Fulton County, Georgia, over the legal counsel he rendered to Trump following the 2020 election. The Georgia case was dropped in 2025.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump should not fill Alito’s seat with a ‘meh’ in robes

At the beginning of the year, one of my crystal-ball predictions for 2026 was that Samuel Alito and/or Clarence Thomas would retire so President Trump could replace them before the midterms.

Recent reporting suggests that prediction may prove correct, especially with speculation that Alito is considering stepping down. So I checked with some sources to see which names are circulating as possible replacements.

Why should our side ever put a judge on the Supreme Court who sides with the left on the sanctity of life for any reason?

The reality is Alito is not easily replaced. He has been one of the best Supreme Court justices of this century. His successor cannot be some C-plus or B-minus judge with a fuzzy record and a habit of folding at the wrong moment. The stakes are too high.

That is why one name worries me: Judge Andrew Oldham.

Trump already passed on Oldham for the Supreme Court in 2020 and for good reason. What remains of our constitutional republic does not have time for a “meh” nominee.

Oldham, a former general counsel to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), now serves on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A quick look at his record shows a pattern that should alarm anyone hoping for another Alito.

Let’s start with life.

Alito authored the phenomenal majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade, one of the most wicked decisions in American history. Oldham’s record points the other way. In 2000, Bill Clinton’s FDA treated pregnancy as an “illness” to justify accelerated approval of abortion drugs as the supposed “cure.” Years later, a Trump-appointed district judge rightly rejected that decision, and a Trump-appointed circuit judge backed him. Oldham, however, became the first circuit judge to side with the Clinton FDA’s position on procedural grounds.

The American Family Association called that decision “shockingly weak” at the time. The Supreme Court effectively vindicated that criticism in 2024 when it overturned Oldham by a 6-3 vote.

Why should our side ever put a judge on the Supreme Court who sides with the left on the sanctity of life for any reason?

The concerns do not stop there.

AFA, which tracks judicial nominations as well as any group on the right, has also described Oldham as “soft” on COVID shot mandates. He earned that reputation when he wrote an opinion saying schools need not require children to wear masks, not because masks do not work, but because schools could instead adopt other COVID policies involving vaccines, plexiglass, hand sanitizer, distancing, and more.

The opinion was so weak that no other judge joined it.

Then came gender ideology. Last year, my Blaze Media colleague Daniel Horowitz reported on Oldham siding against doctors and with the Biden administration’s edict that they must perform gender-transition procedures on children by refusing even to hear their challenge. Oldham had a chance to join a Trump-appointed judge who rejected Biden’s grotesque mandate. He passed.

His immigration record raises more red flags.

Photo by Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Oldham declined to back a Trump-appointed district judge who ruled against allowing illegal aliens to receive cheaper in-state college tuition than out-of-state Americans. That alone should have disqualified him from serious consideration.

Thankfully, Trump’s Justice Department sued last year to end that practice in Texas, where Oldham’s former client is governor. Once the Justice Department sued, Texas finally conceded the point. Now left-wing groups want the courts to restore that anti-American policy. And which legal precedent are they citing? Oldham’s.

You cannot make it up.

Nor was that his only immigration failure. Oldham also ruled against Abbott when the governor declared an invasion at the southern border two years ago. Does that sound like a judge ready to overturn Plyler v. Doe, the disastrous precedent that for illegal immigration serves much the same function Roe once served for abortion?

Now sensing that his moment may have arrived, Oldham appears to be trying to retcon himself as a reliably based jurist. Even Slate has noticed the pattern — the judicial equivalent of a comb-over meant to hide an obvious weakness. The result has been embarrassing. He now gets overturned with some regularity by one of the most right-leaning Supreme Courts in recent memory.

That tends to happen when ambition outruns conviction.

Oldham once lobbied Barack Obama to appoint Elizabeth Warren, of all people, to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Now he wants conservatives to view him as Alito’s natural heir. That kind of ideological shape-shifting should make everyone nervous. When a man’s career seems driven more by advancement than by principle, it becomes hard to know where he actually stands.

That was never a question with Alito.

Replacing a sure thing requires another sure thing. Oldham is not that. Maybe he has good explanations for parts of his record. But maybe Trump can do better.

This may be Trump’s last chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It would amount to a self-own of historic proportions for the most based president of modern times to replace Alito with someone appreciably weaker than a George W. Bush appointee turned out to be.

Ketanji Brown Jackson exposes her own worldview, compares black people to disabled people

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is under fire after invoking the Americans with Disabilities Act during oral arguments in defense of ensuring black representation in Congress — however, many are now accusing her of comparing black people to the disabled.

"The fact that remedial action, absent discriminatory intent, is really not a new idea in the civil rights laws. And my kind of paradigmatic example of this is something like the ADA.”

"Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities. And so it was discriminatory, in effect, because these folks were not able to access these buildings — and it didn't matter whether the person who built the building, or the person who owned the building, intended for them to be exclusionary. That's irrelevant," she continued.

"Congress said the facilities have to be made equally open to people with disabilities, if readily possible. I guess I don't understand why that's not what's happening here."

“The idea in Section 2 is that we are responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don’t have equal access to the voting system, right?” she asked, adding, “They’re disabled.”

BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock admits that it’s “a tricky conversation” and a “tricky subject.”

“If you go back in history, there was legitimate racial discrimination that harmed black people politically. There are a number of us that think that that time has passed, that that sort of discrimination has passed, and there is no … racial impediment to seeking higher office in Congress, in the House, Senate, whatever,” Whitlock says on “Jason Whitlock Harmony.”

“So in her defense of gerrymandering, she’s saying that we have faced so much discrimination that we’re disabled,” he adds.

“She’s not on solid ground,” BlazeTV contributor Virgil Walker says. “She has a false view of mankind. She has a false view of blacks in particular, mankind in general. What she’s exposing in her response is actually her worldview. Her idea that blacks are handicapped, blacks are disabled, blacks are beholden unto white power structures and submitted to that.”

“She has an unbiblical anthropology. All that means is an unbiblical view of who we are, who man is, an unbiblical view that we are not image-bearers of God, that you can assess who we are on the basis of the level of melanin in our skin and the historic narrative that has been permeated throughout American culture and society,” he adds.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Democrats want to destroy the Supreme Court by packing it

The Democrats are trying to pack the Supreme Court, and Mark Levin is not amused.

“We have no choice,” he mocks, “we have to pack the Supreme Court. Biden has to issue executive orders like he’s making laws from the Oval Office.”

“We need to get rid of the filibuster rule,” he continues, “so we can ram through whatever we want to in the Senate. Then we have to add Puerto Rico and D.C. as states so we can have four more Democrats, so the Republicans can never win.”

Levin says the Democrats “hate the Constitution” before playing a clip of news anchor Chris Hayes, who doesn’t seem to understand what’s in the Constitution.

“These days,” Hayes begins, “it’s fair to ask who really is in charge in this country, because the momentous loss of the constitutional right to abortion, which has led to state abortion bans across the country –”

Levin cuts him off and ends the video.

“Okay, dummy,” he says, “the 'constitutional right to abortion' is not in the Constitution.”

Levin asks where the “long list of women who can’t get abortions who want or need abortions” are, because if there were a long list of them, networks like MSNBC would be airing it.

“If this is really the problem,” he says, “don’t you think night after night, day after day, that tricks like this and jerk networks like this and others, they would have a conga line of cases, they would put their names on their, on their screen, something like that. But they don’t.”

Levin believes these Constitution-ignorant leftists want to destroy not just the Constitution, but the Supreme Court.

And how do you destroy it?

“Turn it into the Democrat Party Marxist Politburo by packing the court,” he continues. “Well then, what’s the point of having a court?”

Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before —subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Whoops! 'Good Morning America' deletes tweet that inaccurately called Ketanji Brown Jackson 'the first Black Supreme Court justice in U.S. history'

A tweet posted to the Good Morning America Twitter account on Thursday erroneously described Ketanji Brown Jackson as being the nation's first-ever black Supreme Court Justice.

"Ketanji Brown Jackson is sworn in as the first Black Supreme Court justice in U.S. history," the now-deleted post declared.

\u201cLol why did you delete this, @GMA ?\u201d
— Benny Johnson (@Benny Johnson) 1656630386

The inaccurate tweet was reportedly up for hours before being deleted, but Good Morning America eventually issued a correction post.

"CORRECTION: Video shows Ketanji Brown Jackson sworn in as the first Black female Supreme Court justice in U.S. history. A previous tweet erroneously stated Jackson is the first Black Supreme Court justice," the tweet noted.

\u201cCORRECTION: Video shows Ketanji Brown Jackson sworn in as the first Black female Supreme Court justice in U.S. history.\n\nA previous tweet erroneously stated Jackson is the first Black Supreme Court justice. https://t.co/aWelikUtZg\u201d
— Good Morning America (@Good Morning America) 1656629129

Jackson, who was sworn in on Thursday, is the first black woman ever to serve on the nation's highest court, but she is not the first black American to serve on the Supreme Court bench.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who is black, was nominated by President George H.W. Bush and has served on the Supreme Court for more than 30 years. Thurgood Marshall was the first black person ever to serve on the Supreme Court.

Only three Republican senators voted in favor of confirming Jackson to serve on the Supreme Court: Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

President Joe Biden nominated Jackson to replace Justice Stephen Breyer, who had announced plans to retire earlier this year — Breyer's retirement became effective Thursday at noon.

Biden had pledged to nominate a black woman, but many Americans considered the concept of narrowing the field of potential candidates based solely on skin color and gender to be highly inappropriate.

"Biden’s mistake: He should not be choosing a Supreme Court justice based on the color of their skin or sex, but rather on their qualifications & commitment to uphold our Constitution & the freedoms guaranteed to all Americans in that document which is the foundation of our nation," former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii tweeted in January.

Stop the Supreme Court Insanity Now

Supreme Court Leak Reaction: Are We About to Overturn Roe v. Wade?

Supreme Court justice SWATTED

Journalist exposes explosive insider details of SCOTUS meltdown that almost killed Dobbs: ‘The walls were shaking’

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

Conservative lawyer John Eastman punished AGAIN for representing Trump

Trump should not fill Alito’s seat with a ‘meh’ in robes

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

Judicial Org Ignored Threats To Judges Until ‘Threats’ Affected Constitution Haters

Democrats want to destroy the Supreme Court by packing it

Want more from Mark Levin?

Whoops! 'Good Morning America' deletes tweet that inaccurately called Ketanji Brown Jackson 'the first Black Supreme Court justice in U.S. history'

Stop the Supreme Court Insanity Now

Supreme Court Leak Reaction: Are We About to Overturn Roe v. Wade?

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

Want more from Mark Levin?

We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.