Protesters have held peaceful demonstrations in recent days outside in homes of some conservative Supreme Court justices after publication of draft Supreme Court majority opinion that strikes out Roe v. Wade. In a statement Wednesday night, a Justice Department spokesman said Garland was continuing to be briefed. on “security issues” with justices and that he has directed the United States Marshals Service to assist a separate police agency that provides security for the Supreme Court.
The statement came as the Republicans raged up pressure on Garland for law enforcement and expediency of The protests split the Democrats who hope for outrage over expected Supreme Court decision Eviscerating abortion rights will boost them in intermediate deadlines.
White House and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer declined condemn the protests outside justices’ homes as long as they remain peaceful, while Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin called them “reprehensible”. on Thursday. The Senate has also approved new security package for justices and their families, but the bill’s prospects in The house is unknown.
Ministry of Justice declined to comment on letters from Republicans pushing for the 1950s-era statute to be respected. But participation of The US Marshals Service Can Do It easier for federal prosecutors to enforce the law the Conservatives cite, along with with other laws should protesters pose a threat. there were no arrests made for now and so far, the demonstrations have been peaceful.
Law enforcement officials say that while similar laws have been upheld in other circumstances not like in current protests, it is broad and has not been used to target other protests that would appear illegal under the 1950 law.
Governors of states where justices live ask for federal aid
A barrier was erected around the Supreme Court building last one week after the publication of the draft conclusion. This was reported by the US Marshals Service. in Monday’s announcement that they are helping to respond to “increased security concerns related to the unauthorized release of of draft conclusion.
“Marshal of Supreme Court and Supreme Court Police responsible for in protection of The U.S. Supreme Court and its facilities,” the statement said. “The United States Marshals Service (USMS) has strong partnerships with Supreme Court Police and upon request of marshal of Supreme Court, USMS provides assistance as needed.”
“We also deep concerned according to reports of demonstrators using threatening languageMaryland Governors Larry Hogan and Virginia Governors Glenn Youngkin said. in letter stating that one a man told CNN affiliate WUSA9, “If you take away our choice, we will riot.”
The governors’ letter comes amid questions about whether local or state governments can prosecute under state law. like Virginia law banning picketing that “violates” a person’s right to peace in his home.”
When asked by CNN about this Virginia law, the local prosecutor in Fairfax County, where some of in justices live — said that the demonstrators would not persecute him office.
“I won’t chase community members for peacefully exercise their rights under the First Amendment. My focus will be remain on action to protect rights of women in Fairfax County should this dangerous project the Supreme Court decision taking effect, that’s why I vowed never to stalk a woman for creating your own healthcare decisionsFairfax County Commonwealth Attorney Steve Descano said. in statement to CNN.
Protest law aimed at attempts to influence the litigation
the federal law in questions calls for good sand up to year in prison for “pickets or parades” near “a building or a dwelling occupied or used by a “judge with the intent of influence on any judge” in “ejection of his duty.”
The law was also quoted in letter sent to Garland on Wednesday Grassley.
“There is no doubt that far-left activists made a concerted and coordinated effort to intimidate the court into changing the Dobbs project. decision”, Grassley wrote, referring to the name of The abortion case is now in court.
“But instead of in investigating and prosecuting these illegal activities, the administration, unfortunately, neglected of threats and danger to both justices and our judicial system capitalized,” he wrote.
The Justice Department’s statement on Wednesday made no mention of the law and made no commitment to prosecute the demonstrators. who protest outside in justices’ homes.
“Attorney General Garland continues to receive briefings. on security issues related to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court judges,” said Justice Department spokesman Anthony Coley. “The Attorney General instructed the US Marshals Service help ensure judges safety providing additional support marshal of The Supreme Court and the Police of the Supreme Court”.
Legal experts – pointing to Supreme Court precedents dealing with similar types of laws – said the 1950 law that covered protests at judges’ residences was likely to be supported as constitutional and they said it seemed applicable in in current circumstances.
One of the relevant rulings were the opinion of the court in 1965. in cox v louisiana in that the court said: “The State may take the necessary and appropriate safeguards to ensure that the administration of justice at all stages free from outside control and influence.
If this and other decisions of the Supreme Court had not been currently on books, there may be plausible arguments for why the law of 1950 is unconstitutional, according to Yevgeny Volokh, the constitutional law professor at UCLA School of Law.
But he said, “You have a precedent that’s pretty clear on point and answer at least for now it’s the law.”
Evan Perez and Whitney Wild of CNN provided reporting.
.
