We Don’t Need Harsher Penalties on Picketing Near Courthouses

“You mess around with me, and I’ll wipe the floor with you,” Judge Judy told an obstreperous litigant.
 
That’s how judges, even TV judges, run their courtrooms – as monarchs. But the reality is that the inner workings of these little kingdoms are delicate operations, protected from the outside world by stone, marble, X-ray machines, and metal detectors.
 
Courtrooms also need protection from outside protesters using sound-trucks and other devices to try to intimidate jurists or interfere with judicial operations. 18 U.S. Code § 1507 does this by prohibiting “interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice” through “pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer.”
 
At present, the crime is punishable by a maximum prison sentence of up to one year. A new bill introduced in Congress would boost the punishment to five years. Are this law and its proposed amendment precise enough to avoid sweeping in legitimate protest?
 
Respect for the Constitution, of course, requires protecting the deliberations of a courtroom. In recent years, we’ve seen a marked increase in intimidation and even violence against the judiciary. Look no further than the horrifying case of Daniel Anderl, the son of federal judge Esther Salas, who was gunned down in a despicable act of vengeance by culprit – and attorney – Roy Den Hollander.
 
Nor are Justices of the Supreme Court immune from danger. Consider Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was threatened by an armed gunman outside of his house in Maryland.
 
These are serious concerns, and it is good that we have laws criminalizing threatening conduct. The new bill’s broad penalties, though they arise out of understandable concerns, could have the unfortunate effect of chilling free speech. Moreover, the reach of the federal statute – particularly when coupled with the proposed five-year penalty – could very well be sufficient to scare off law-abiding folks engaged in legitimate, peaceful protest.
 
After all, what exactly constitutes “influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty” through “pickets or parades” near a courthouse? How far away from a courthouse do protestors have to be to be considered legal? When coupled with such a draconian penalty, this law could discourage law-abiding citizens and their publicly aired complaints and criticisms. The U.S. Supreme Court allows such statements on the sidewalk in front of its majestic façade. Where are the lines drawn for other protests for other courts?
 
Our take: Though well-intentioned, the expansion of this bill overshoots the mark. Perhaps both civil libertarians and security-minded senators alike would profit from clarifying the existing law.

DONATE & HELP US PROTECT YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS