Substitute while the actions of the article are loading
RICHMOND – The Republican governors of Virginia and Maryland on Thursday continued their calls for federal action against protests over abortion rights in the homes of Supreme Court justices, noting that their respective state laws are “weak” if not unconstitutional.
“We have times when common sense must prevail. And common sense here dictates that the ability to actually demonstrate and express your views is protected by the First Amendment, “Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin told reporters after a public speech in Richmond on Thursday morning. “It is simply not appropriate or legal to do so at the judges’ residence.”
Youngkin and Hogan on Wednesday called on U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to impose a federal law banning demonstrations designed to influence judges in pending cases, sparking outrage from protesters sparked by a leaked draft opinion suggesting the Supreme Court is preparing to cancel Rowe vs. Wadethe 1973 decision guaranteeing access to abortion throughout the country.
Youngkin and Hogan wrote to Garland just days after some conservatives accused Youngkin of not arresting protesters outside Alexandria, Virginia, the home of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., under a U.S. law banning demonstrations in private homes.
Protesters insist they are exercising their rights under the First Amendment and question the idea that they are trying to illegally influence judges. On Thursday, the abortion rights group Bans Off My Body announced on Facebook that it planned to picket Montgomery County, Maryland, the homes of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Judge Brett M. Cavanaugh every Wednesday night in May.
Today, @GovernorVA and I sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, calling on the Ministry of Justice to provide adequate resources to keep Supreme Court judges and their families safe amid ongoing protests in their homes. pic.twitter.com/6D0bMGSp3q
– Governor Larry Hogan (@GovLarryHogan) May 11, 2022
“They will not change their minds. We are expressing our rage, “said Donna Damiko, a 70-year-old grandmother who protested in front of Cavanaugh’s home last week. “We are impotent and that is all we have to do except pray for people to vote in November.
The two governors – both potential contenders for the Republican nomination for president in 2024 – said the protests were better than the man President Biden chose to run the Justice Department.
“It is up to you to ensure that applicable federal law is enforced to preserve the integrity of our American judiciary and the safety of our citizens,” they wrote.
Several protesters in front of Cavanaugh’s home on Wednesday night rejected the premise of the governors’ letter.
“I don’t think a group of candlelit neighbors will change Cavanaugh’s mind – or threaten him,” said Lynn Canter, who was walking five blocks from her house to join, wearing a small sign that read ” Keep your prohibitions and your hands to yourself. “
Abortion rights activists demonstrated in front of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Cavanaugh’s home in Chevy Chase, Maryland, on May 11. (Video: Dan Morse / Washington Post)
Yes, experts say the protests in the homes of SCOTUS judges seem illegal
“It’s absolutely hypocritical,” she said of the idea that judges should be given extra privacy, “because the Supreme Court wants to have power over women’s uteri, and yet the sidewalk in front of their homes is kind of sacred ground.”
Protesters began gathering in front of the homes of Alito, Cavanaugh and his neighbor Roberts, not after the opinion expired last week.
On Wednesday night, they left for Cavanaugh’s house and headed for Roberts’ house before returning to Cavanaugh, protesters Nadine Sailor and Karen Irwin said. The group was almost equal to about 15 local and federal law enforcement officers standing in front of Cavanaugh’s house as protesters walked slowly up and down a block of its narrow street.
Youngkin, who appeared on Fox News on Wednesday to announce the letter to Garland, also said he would ask local authorities to create a “perimeter” restricting the access of vehicles and pedestrians in the Alito neighborhood. However, Fairfax County officials rejected it, saying it would be an unconstitutional “checkpoint”.
Hogan did not recommend a perimeter around the homes of judges living in Maryland, according to spokesman Michael Richie, who said the governor was leaving details to law enforcement.
Although peaceful, the demonstrations appear illegal, several legal experts say. They cite a federal law that Youngkin and Hogan cite in their letter: a 1950 statute that bans any demonstration “with the intention of influencing every judge.”
Federal law treats protests against judges differently from those focused on politicians, for example; Lawyers are designed to be isolated from public pressure or the appearance of it.
Abortion advocate has been working for years to repeal Rowe, but worries about next steps
Federal law applies to all demonstrations designed to influence a judge, regardless of location, so it will apply to both protesters gathered in the courthouse and those who picket in the suburbs. Demonstrations take place all the time outside the Supreme Court – without federal charges – while related cases are disputed inside.
“Just because you can charge doesn’t mean you have to,” said Barb McQuaid, a former U.S. prosecutor in the Eastern District of Michigan.
McQuaid noted that federal judges have faced real threats of violence in recent years, and she disliked demonstrations targeting the homes of government officials. But the Ministry of Justice, she said, will also have to assess its concerns about protecting human rights under the First Amendment when deciding whether to file a lawsuit.
“I think it’s very dangerous when people start protesting outside the homes of government officials; but I also think it is very dangerous to break up peaceful protests, “she said.
Separately, Virginia and Maryland have laws in their books that prohibit them demonstrations of all kinds in or near private homes.
Maryland’s 1971 ban on picketing people’s homes was lifted by state courts as unconstitutional just six years later after men convicted of picketing the home of then-Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld appealed. the statute was repealed.
Virginia’s law against home picketing dates back at least 1950. Some conservatives criticized Youngkin this week for not using it to arrest the pickets at Alito’s house, although their implementation will depend on Fairfax County local authorities. and not by the governor.
“State status is punishable by a fine, and that is entirely a weak law,” Youngkin said Thursday.
Youngkin’s allies, including Attorney General Jason Miares (right) and Lt. Gov. Winsom Earl-Sears (right), pointed to Fairfax County Attorney Steve Descano, suggesting the Liberal prosecutor file charges under state law.
“I will not prosecute members of the community for peacefully exercising their rights for the First Amendment,” Descano said on Thursday. “I am horrified that this is Mr Miares’s focus when the rights of thousands of Virginia women to make their own health decisions are threatened by the forthcoming Rowe Supreme Court ruling.”
Police and prosecutors in more conservative parts of the state have also been reluctant to impose state law amid questions about its constitutionality. Clark Mercer, the chief of staff to Yankin’s predecessor, Democrat Ralph Northam, said he strongly supported the right to protest, but was concerned when a man showed up at his home in Hanover County with a huge sign mentioning Biden and swearing.
“I immediately turned to the police,” he said. “And they looked at him. Their initial reaction was that they thought it was a crime. … There is a state law on books [prohibiting protests at homes] that’s crystal clear. “
But Mercer said police later learned from a local prosecutor that the law might not hold up.
Youngkin and Hogan referred only to federal law in their letter, arguing that the protesters apparently intended to influence the judges, given that “the document in question is a draft opinion.” However, they refer to the intrusive nature of the home demonstration.
“Although protesting against the final opinion of the Supreme Court is common when taken on the steps of the court or in a public square, the circumstances of the current picketing in the private homes of judges in residential areas are significantly different,” they wrote.
Yengin leaned toward this point in an interview with Fox News with Neil Cavuto on Wednesday afternoon.
“It’s just fundamentally wrong for people to show up at judges’ homes and try to influence and intimidate them,” he said. “Federal law makes it clear that this is wrong and the Attorney General must impose it.
Justice Department spokesman Anthony Collie said in a statement Wednesday that Garland was monitoring the situation and had “directed the US Marshals Service to help ensure the safety of judges by providing additional support to the Supreme Court Marshal and Supreme Court Police”. .
A neighbor protests over abortion rights in front of Cavanaugh’s home
A spokesman for Hogan said governors hoped the publication of their request would speed up the resolution of both law enforcement and neighbors of justice, given that the protests appear likely to continue at least until the court rules on abortion.
The public needs to understand that this will be a constant problem in the coming weeks and we want to make sure there is a plan in …
Add Comment