Defending the family

Share on MeWe Share on Gab E-mail article

Miracles Do Happen. Washington Post Agrees With Public Advocate

"The Washington Post agrees with Public Advocate's position that demonstrating at Supreme Court Justices residences is a violation of the federal law prohibiting it," says Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate.

Washington Post Headline: "Yes, experts say protests at SCOTUS justices' homes appear to be illegal"

The Washington Post reports:

(That)"..... while protest is indeed ingrained in American democracy, legally speaking, the comparison between protesting a politician at home and a member of the judiciary at home is inexact. And experts say the latter category of protests is probably illegal regardless of how peaceful the demonstrations are.

At issue is a statute enacted in 1950: Title 18, Section 1507, of the U.S. Code. The law states that it is illegal, "with the intent of influencing any judge," to:

picket or parade "in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer" "or with such intent," to resort "to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence"

Tabatha Abu El-Haj, an expert on protest rights at Drexel University's law school, said that the current protests at justices' homes qualify under the statute and that the statute, if tested, would probably be found constitutional.

"The statute would seem to apply both because & they appear to be picketing and parading with the relevant intent and at the relevant locations," Abu El-Haj said, "but also because the statute has a catchall 'resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence.' "

Timothy Zick of the College of William & Mary, who is writing a book on the subject called, "Managed Dissent: The Law of Public Protest," agreed., " The Post Reported.