When it involves shielding Supreme Court Justices from intimidation by a mob, the buck apparently stops nowhere. Marshal of the Court
Gail Curley
has written to officers in Virginia and Maryland, warning that “protest activity at Justices’ homes, as well as threatening activity, has only increased.”
Virginia legislation bans picketing non-public residences or assembling to “disrupt any individual’s right to tranquility in his home.” Ms. Curley cites that statute in letters to Gov.
Glenn Youngkin
and Fairfax County. She says that final week dozens of protesters have been exterior the Justices’ houses, yelling “no privacy for us, no peace for you!” and chanting expletives. “This is exactly the kind of conduct that Virginia law prohibits,” Ms. Curley provides.
Maryland has the same statute defending residential peace, which she cites in a letter to Gov.
Larry Hogan.
To Montgomery County, Ms. Curley factors out an area legislation that prohibits picketing “in front of or adjacent to any private residence.” It permits protests to march by means of neighborhoods “without stopping at any particular private residence.” But in line with the marshal, crowds have lingered for as much as half-hour at a time exterior the Justices’ houses.
Why is no one prepared to deploy such legal guidelines towards judicial intimidation? Officials have argued that Virginia’s and Maryland’s statutes are unenforceable, since they aren’t content material impartial. Both legal guidelines have an exception that enables picketing for labor disputes. In a 1980 case (Carey v. Brown), the Supreme Court dominated 6-3 {that a} comparable Illinois picketing ban was unconstitutional, because it had a union carve-out that “accords preferential treatment to the expression of views on one particular subject.”
Jeff McKay,
chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, mentioned he thinks the Virginia statute quoted by Ms. Curley is unconstitutional. “The law cited in the letter is a likely violation of the First Amendment,” he mentioned. “As long as individuals are assembling on public property and not blocking access to private residences, they are permitted to be there.”
Montgomery County’s native ban on residential picketing options no suspect union privilege. The High Court in Carey v. Brown mentioned it didn’t intend to indicate “that residential picketing is beyond the reach of uniform and nondiscriminatory regulation.” It added {that a} state’s curiosity in defending the tranquility of personal homes “is certainly of the highest order in a free and civilized society.”
Nevertheless, Montgomery County appears tired of implementing its picketing rule. “We are following the law that provides security and respects the First Amendment rights of protesters,” mentioned County Executive
Marc Elrich.
“It is noteworthy that the primary responsibility for the safety of the Supreme Court Justices and their families lies with the federal government.” The county didn’t provide a selected reply Tuesday when requested why, precisely, it isn’t implementing its picketing ban.
As for the feds, the place’s our invisible Attorney General
Merrick Garland
? Federal legislation bans trying to affect the courts by picketing the houses of judges. Govs. Youngkin and Hogan have requested Mr. Garland to behave, quoting one Supreme Court protester as saying: “If you take away our choices, we will riot.” The Justice Department’s reply to Messrs. Youngkin and Hogan reads like a type letter to an annoying constituent.
Jeering exterior the houses of public officers, some with younger youngsters, is a political escalation that Americans would possibly quickly remorse. Virginia and Maryland, the place many authorities bigwigs dwell, can be sensible to shore up their legal guidelines by eradicating these faulty labor exemptions. Montgomery County might attempt to implement its ban, and Mr. Elrich could be stunned to search out help from a lot of the general public. Ditto for Mr. Garland. If not, they’ll bear some duty for the ugly precedent.
Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared within the July 6, 2022, print version.
Source: www.wsj.com”