Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Eight people rose, one at a time, from the gallery of the United States Supreme Court to express disapproval of the Supreme Court’s decision Citizens United. They were led off to face the consequences.
Kathleen L. Arberg, the Court’s public information officer, said eight individuals were arrested in Wednesday’s disturbance. Seven have been charged with violating a federal law against making “a harangue or oration, or utter[ing] loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building,” as well as with violating two Court regulations.
Arberg said those seven, along with the eighth individual, were also charged with “conspiracy-related offenses” under District of Columbia law.
On the one hand, maintenance of order in the chamber is obviously necessary so that the Court can conduct its business. Yet, the judiciary is one branch of our tripartite government; why should it be immune from the proscriptions of the First Amendment. And it’s not just freedom of speech, but of assembly and petition for a redress of grievances.
Given that the justices are appointed for life, there are no elections where people can express their disagreement with the Court’s rulings or a justice’s vote or writings. Indeed, there is precious little opportunity for a citizen to express his thoughts to a Supreme Court justice. Why not? Why is this one branch of government singularly insulated from all outside influence?
This wasn’t a violent attack on the Court, but citizens who stood to alert the justices to their grievance with an opinion. It’s irrelevant that it was Citizens United; any opinion will do.
Just after the Justices had taken the bench at 10 a.m., and as they were about to announce opinions, a woman stood from her seat near the back of the courtroom and said, “I rise on behalf of democracy.” . . . Three Supreme Court police officers quickly converged on her . . .
Such an “outburst” is a crime under 40 U.S.C. § 6134:
It is unlawful to discharge a firearm, firework or explosive, set fire to a combustible, make a harangue or oration, or utter loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building or grounds.
Perhaps discharging a weapon, unless the courtroom is being invaded by zombies, is an understandable prohibition, but “harangue or oration”? Isn’t that exactly what advocates do before the Court for fairly decent wages? And if they don’t talk loudly, how would the old justices hear them?
But it’s not just in the courtroom, but anywhere on the grounds of the Court. When did an American’s right to harangue a branch of government on its steps become a crime?
To add insult to the mix, Chief Justice Roberts was not impressed with the protest.
As what at first seemed like the lone demonstrator was removed, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. quipped, “Our second order of business this morning …” to laughs from the crowded courtroom.
But before he could finish that thought, a second demonstrators stood and said, “One person, one vote.” . . . As the second protestor was being approached by officers, a third and a fourth one stood and uttered similar lines.
The Chief Justice was heard to mutter, “Oh, please.”
A quip was a fair and appropriate response, but then, The Chief’s sense of humor was pushed too far with the second protestor, and his funny retort ended in dismissiveness. That would be fine, if condescending, but for the fact that this came from one of nine votes in all of the United States government whose duty it is to define the parameters of that very First Amendment right being exercised before him.
After six or seven demonstrators had said their lines and were removed, which had taken several minutes, it appeared the protest was over.
For the Court, it was over. For the protestors, it was just beginning, as they now move on to face prosecution for protesting. Perhaps they will have years of quiet to reflect on the efficacy of those several minutes of protest, to decide whether it was worth it. Hopefully not, but then, one never knows how firm a position the government will take with people who disrupt very important government officials.
And that’s the gravamen of this question: what authority does the government possess, in light of the First Amendment, to criminalize the expression of disagreement and unhappiness to important government officials? Isn’t that exactly what Americans have a right to do? Why should the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States be the only high officials who are insulated from public disapproval?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hope they didn’t wake Justice Ginsburg.
Surely the rules against outbursts in a courtroom while court is in session are acceptable time, place, and manner restrictions. Your point about the steps of the courthouse or at least the plaza outside the courthouse has to be considered separately, and in light of the Massachusetts abortion buffer zone decision last Term, the current restrictions on speech in that area seem very difficult to justify.
We’re pretty damned accepting of the “time, place and manner” restrictions that have become an accepted part of free speech control. But why? The question isn’t whether there are rules. Of course there are. But what makes them proper aside from the very Court that enjoys their benefit saying so?
So that the business of the courts can be done without interruption. Duh.
Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court.
On Twitter, someone named Andre claimed my comment showed I was a “good little statist.” Awesome!
Maybe he just left the “ic” off the end. Typos happen.
I’d buy the fact that people who shout things out in the courtroom should be punished, because juries can be exposed to information that they are purposefully being kept silent on.
Obviously, if there is any court where this wouldn’t apply, it’d be SCOTUS. They are supposedly professionals and can just ignore it.
Come now, all of our rights can be “reasonably regulated”. Stopping disruptions in the Supreme Court chamber would seem to be reasonable, yes?
The justices can be, and often are, criticized. On the news, in the street, in homes; nobody is saying they are beyond reproach. But if disruption in a lil’ ol’ state court can lead to contempt, surely the nations highest court can prevent disruptions with the only laws (federal) available to it?
Curious. What part of the Constitution did you see that said our unalienable rights may be regulated by the government which was given limited powers, and then was further expressly forbidden from crossing certain lines?
Isn’t freedom of speech inherently disruptive?
SHG,
Personally, I like the idea of the Supreme Court Police busting the heads of Citizens United protestors. Anybody who is that annoyingly earnest deserves a good cuffing simply as a matter of principle. What’s hard about the idea that if you can’t afford justice you don’t deserve it.
By the way, my judicial hero is and always will be the completely bat shit Julius J. Hoffman. As Kenny Rogers lamented, “They don’t make ’em like they used to.”
All the best.
RGK
Where’s Abbe Hoffman when you need him? He never would have offered such tepid protest.
Does it matter that the Court arguably has no ongoing authority to redress this particular grievance? If Congress passes a bad law (say, the Patriot Act or the ACA, depending on your political proclivities), Congress can be petitioned to repeal or amend the law; if the President takes bad executive action (on immigration, for example), the President can be petitioned to reverse course and issue new executive orders. In contrast, since “the judicial power” under Article III extends only to “cases”, the Court might be seen as having no ongoing jurisdiction to revisit Citizens United (or any other case) without a new case or controversy. Lawyers have previously asked the Supreme Court to officially overturn its opinion in Korematsu v. United States, the Japanese internment case, and met with no success. The Solicitor General, on the other hand, issued a formal “admission of error” in 2011.
With that in mind, the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances would seem weak when the individuals you’re petitioning don’t have any authority to redress the grievance. Sort of like haranguing the municipal garbage collector on his weekly rounds about the fees you’re paying for trash collection. He may have advocated for the fees in the first place, but once the hypothetical City Council authorizes them, he can’t single-handedly change them. (I fear an analogy to police officers enforcing laws has too much potential for going even more off the rails than the garbage collector hypothetical.)
So Supreme Court Justices are kinda like the municipal garbage collectors as far as their power and authority?
Admittedly, for most people the municipal garbage collector is more important in their daily lives.
Also prohibited:
40 USC § 6135
But, exceptions can be made:
40 USC §6136
BTW, what might people think had CJ Roberts emulated frequent contributor Judge Kopf’s esteemed predecessor, Judge Urbom, regarding dealing with perceived breaches of decorum ( see comment “Nothing Left to Compromise, 12/29/2014 ) instead of making a condescending joke?
Assume for a moment that they are actually criminally prosecuted. After challenging the charges on facial First Amendment grounds, their challenge is unsuccessful and they appeal. (Even better — assume that the case was tried on its merits and the defendants were convicted, with the First Amendment issue preserved for appellate review.) The appellate challenges are likewise unsuccessful and they file for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court (or they are successful and the government appeals to SCOTUS).
As fact witnesses to the underlying offense, would the justices have to recuse themselves from even considering whether to grant or deny the writ? Even if the justices did not testify and were never asked to testify at trial, and even if they aren’t explicitly named as such, aren’t they effectively the complainants in the case? If recused, who would replace them?
Are you asking for volunteers? Seriously, that’s an excellent point.
I love this idea and you can absolutely count me as a willing tethered goat for this experiment.
Not this exact issue, but . . . [Ed. Note: Balance deleted as off-topic. Just because someone strays slightly does not mean the next person has to dive head first down the rabbit hole.]
(I hereby certify, upon personal belief, that this comment does not make anyone stupider on the subject at hand.)
LOL, that’s the first thing defense counsel should do, is subpoena the Court as witnesses….