In recent days, protesters have staged peaceful demonstrations outside the homes of a number of conservative Supreme Court justices following the release of a draft Supreme Court ruling that will overturn Rowe v. Wade. In a statement Wednesday night, a Justice Department spokesman said Garland continued to be briefed on judges’ “security issues” and had ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to assist the separate police agency that provides security. the Supreme Courtroom.
The statement came as Republicans stepped up pressure on Garland to enforce the law, and as the appropriateness of the protests split Democrats, who hope outrage over the Supreme Court’s expected decision to eradicate abortion rights will strengthen them in the interim.
White House and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer declined to condemn the protests outside the judges’ homes as long as they were peaceful, while Senate Judge Dick Durbin called them “reprehensible” on Thursday. The Senate also approved a new security package for judges and their families, but the prospects for the bill in the House are unclear.
“The president may choose to characterize protests, riots and incitement to violence as a mere passion,” Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, a leading Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said in a letter to Garland on Wednesday. “But these attempts to influence and intimidate members of the federal judiciary are an insult to judicial independence.”
The Justice Department declined to comment on letters from Republicans calling for the implementation of the 1950s statutes. But the involvement of the U.S. Marshal’s Office could make it easier for federal prosecutors to enforce the law, which conservatives cite, along with other laws, if protesters pose a threat. No arrests have been made so far and the demonstrations have been peaceful so far.
Law enforcement officials say that while similar statutes have been confirmed in circumstances other than the current protests, it is broad and has not been used to prosecute other protests that would appear illegal under the 1950 law.
The governors of the states where the judges live want federal help
Last week’s expiration of a draft majority opinion overturning the 1973 Supreme Court ruling on abortion rights sparked demonstrations in front of the homes of Judges Samuel Alito, who wrote the draft opinion, and Brett Cavanaugh, who is likely on the Conservative majority in in favor of overturning Rowe v. Wade’s 1973 ruling. Protesters also demonstrated in front of Chief Justice John Roberts’ home.
A barrier was erected around the Supreme Court last week after the draft opinion was released. The U.S. Marshals Office said in a statement Monday that it was helping to address “increased security concerns stemming from unauthorized disclosure of the draft opinion.”
“The Marshal of the Supreme Court and the police of the Supreme Court are responsible for protecting the United States Supreme Court and its facilities,” the statement said. “The US Marshals Service (USMS) has a strong partnership with the Supreme Court Police and, at the request of the Marshal of the Supreme Court, the USMS provides assistance as needed.”
The Republican governors of Maryland and Virginia, where several judges have their homes, outlined the law in a letter Wednesday asking Garland to offer more federal resources to protect Supreme Court justices, urging him to impose federal status that bans protests. intended to influence judicial action.
“We are also deeply concerned by reports of threatening language demonstrators,” Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin said in a letter noting that a man told CNN WUSA9 affiliates: “If you take away our choice, we will rebel. “
The governors’ letter comes amid questions about whether local or state authorities can prosecute under state law, such as Virginia law, which prohibits picketing that “violates” an individual’s “right” to peace of mind.
Asked by CNN about the Virginia law, the local prosecutor in Fairfax County – where some of the judges live – said the protesters would not be prosecuted by his office.
“I will not persecute members of the community for peacefully exercising their rights under the First Amendment. My focus will remain on protecting women’s rights in Fairfax County if this dangerous draft Supreme Court decision goes into effect, so I promised never to prosecute a woman for making her own health decisions, “the lawyer said. of Fairfax County Steve Descano in a statement to CNN.
Protest law aimed at efforts to influence the trial
The federal law in question provides for fines and up to one year in prison for “pickets or parades” near a “building or residence inhabited or used by” a judge who “intends to influence any judge” on discharge. “
The law was also cited in a letter sent to Garland on Wednesday by Grassley.
“It is undeniable that far-left activists have begun a concerted and coordinated effort to intimidate the Court into reversing Dobbs’ draft decision,” Grassley wrote, referring to the name of the abortion case now before the court.
“But instead of investigating and prosecuting this illegal activity, the administration unfortunately ignores the threats and dangers to both the judiciary and our judiciary,” he wrote.
The White House has warned against any “violence, threats or vandalism” against judges. Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, also cited the law in his own letter to Garland on Tuesday, suggesting that the Attorney General could face impeachment if Republicans return Congress. .
A statement from the Justice Ministry on Wednesday did not refer to the law, nor did it commit itself to prosecuting protesters protesting outside the judges’ homes.
“Attorney General Garland continues to be briefed on security issues related to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court judges,” said Justice Ministry spokesman Anthony Collie. “The Attorney General has ordered the U.S. Marshals Office to help ensure the safety of judges by providing additional support to the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police.”
Legal experts – citing Supreme Court precedents for such laws – said the 1950 law, which covers protests at judges’ residences, was likely to be upheld as constitutional, and said it seemed applicable in the current circumstances. .
One of the relevant decisions is the 1965 opinion of the court in the case of Cox v. Louisiana, in which the court said: “A state can take the necessary and appropriate guarantees to ensure that justice at all stages is free from outside control and influence. “.
If this and other Supreme Court decisions were not currently in the diary, there may be plausible arguments as to why the 1950 law is unconstitutional, according to Eugene Voloch, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA’s Faculty of Law.
But he said, “You have a precedent that’s pretty clear, and the answer is, at least for now, that’s the law.”
CNN’s Evan Perez and Whitney Wilde contributed to the report.
Add Comment