Police Rush to Amy Coney Barrett's House After Receiving Troubling 911 Call
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s home was “swatted” on Wednesday, according to newly released audio.
Washington, D.C.-based independent journalist Andrew Leyden posted audio on Thursday from a reported 911 call.
He wrote, “Police responded to a call for the sound of gunshots at the home of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett last night, but quickly realized it was a swatting call and cleared after meeting with her security detail. This is partial police audio, redacted pursuant to media reporting guidelines on coverage of swatting incidents.”
Police responded to a call for the sound of gunshots at the home of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett last night, but quickly realized it was a swatting call and cleared after meeting with her security detail. This is partial police audio, redacted pursuant to media… pic.twitter.com/fKKSTAVR6F
— Andrew Leyden (@PenguinSix) May 28, 2026
During the call, the dispatcher tells police the location has 24-hour security coverage for a “high priority resident of the county.” Barrett lives in Fairfax County, in northern Virginia.
“Units responding to suspicious noise. Be advised, we have not been able to get an answer on callback to the complainant’s phone number. Unknown if it’s going to be a swatting situation,” the dispatcher said.
In other words, whoever made the 911 call in the first place was not answering when the dispatcher tried to confirm its validity.
A police officer can later be heard telling dispatchers, “Just made contact with security that’s on scene. 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 practice known as “swatting” involves an individual placing a call to police or emergency response authorities generally reporting a violent scene. The idea is to have armed, uniformed law enforcement officers swarm over the target property — and create the possibility that an innocent person could be injured or killed in a tense situation.
Someone tried to get Amy Coney Barrett, her kids and husband killed last night. That’s what swatting really is: Attempted murder. Cops come in guns blazing expecting a shootout. People who initiate these should go to prison for life. Thankfully, the cops talked with her security… https://t.co/pW0FZPjJuu
— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) May 28, 2026
Conservative influencer Robby Starbuck responded on social media, “Someone tried to get Amy Coney Barrett, her kids and husband killed last night. That’s what swatting really is: Attempted murder.”
“Cops come in guns blazing expecting a shootout. People who initiate these should go to prison for life. Thankfully, the cops talked with her security first and prevented a potential tragedy. The left has embraced evil,” he added.
Conservative author and attorney Daniel Vaughan posted on X, “Interesting that the swat incident hit Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s house the evening before two opinions she authored dropped…”
Interesting that the swat incident hit Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s house the evening before two opinions she authored dropped… https://t.co/q8QpYP7aWI
— Daniel Vaughan (@dvaughanCI) May 28, 2026
Counthouse News reported that Barrett authored the majority opinions in two cases involving sentence reductions for convicted criminals.
“In 2023, the Sentencing Commission [during the Biden administration] adopted a policy allowing courts to consider sentencing disparities created by nonretroactive changes in the law in limited circumstances. Daniel Rutherford said his sentence presented one such case,” the outlet reported.
Rutherford argued that under the First Step Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law in 2018 during his first term, he would have only received seven years versus the over 30 years that he received for a series of armed robberies.
BREAKING: In a trio of cases, the Supreme Court *limits* federal judges’ discretion in deciding whether “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant sentence reductions under the First Step Act. #SCOTUS pic.twitter.com/12WG7EOFpu
— Katie Buehler (@bykatiebuehler) May 28, 2026
In Rutherford v. United States, the majority rejected the claim that Rutherford would be a candidate for compassionate release under the First Step Act merely because sentencing guidelines have changed.
“When Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive, the fact that a preamendment sentence is longer than it would have been postamendment is not an ‘extraordinary and compelling reaso[n]’ that ‘warrant[s]’ a sentence reduction,” Barrett wrote.
She noted that judges would have broad powers to override any number of past sentences if the Sentencing Commission’s 2023 policy change were allowed to stand.
“The implications of this argument are sweeping. Indeed, its logic extends well beyond nonretroactive sentencing amendments to disagreement with the length of any punishment on the books,” Barrett wrote.
The justice also authored the majority opinion in Fernandez v. United States, which held that prisoners wanting to challenge the validity of their convictions and sentences under state law can make a federal habeas corpus claim, but they are not eligible for release under the First Step Act.
In the Rutherford case, the decision lined up along the court’s well-known conservative-liberal split, with Barrett, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in the majority and Justices Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Katanji Brown Jackson in the minority, according to Courthouse News.
In the Fernandez case, Sotomayor and Kagan voted with the majority, while Jackson wrote a lone dissent, Courthouse News reported.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
