Why Do Protesters Think It Is Okay to Gather at the Homes of Justices?

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the freedom to protest but under certain conditions. As soon as the leaked Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade came out, protesters descended on the Court to make their opinions known. They have a constitutional right to assemble or to gather with other people to protest. Therefore, they were not doing anything wrong when they peaceably protested at the Court.

However, protesters crossed the line when they gathered at the homes of the Supreme Court justices to protest. They exhibited poor judgment to protest in the streets, on the sidewalks, and in the yards of the homes of the justices. According to various sources, the protesters may have committed crimes when they tried to intimidate the justices while frightening the justices’ families.

Zack Smith and John G. Malcolm published an article on the matter at The Daily Signal. They indicated that the wrongness in the action of the protesters is shown by comments from the Democrat side. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) is the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, and he had the following counsel for the protesters: “I think it’s reprehensible. Stay away from the homes and families of elected officials and members of the court.” The left-leaning Washington Post published the following statement in their editorial section under the title “Leave the Justices Alone at Home.”

The right to assemble and speak freely is essential to democracy. Erasing any distinction between the public square and private life is essential to totalitarianism.

The protests are part of a disturbing trend in which groups descend on the homes of people they disagree with and attempt to influence their public conduct by making their private lives – and, often, those of their families and neighbors – miserable.

To picket a judge’s home is especially problematic. It tries to bring direct public pressure to bear on a decision-making process that must be controlled, evidence-based, and rational if there is to be any hope of an independent judiciary.

            There may be state or local laws that prohibit protesting at the homes of the justices. However, a federal law – 18 U.S.C. §1507 – seems to directly prohibit such action. At least, numerous legal experts think that it applies to this situation.

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge … in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades … in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge … or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year or both.

            Smith and Malcomb wonder why the Department of Justice is not acting against the protesters. They reminded their readers that the DOJ was “quick to condemn parents who showed up at school board meetings … to protest the radical policies being pushed by some board members.” They noted that Attorney General Merrick Garland made a statement but did little else. Garland “continues to be briefed on security matters related to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court justices,” and he “directed the U.S. Marshals Service to help ensure the justices’ safety.” 

           However, Garland stopped short of issuing a statement about the breaking of the law or being “prosecuted and held accountable for their actions.” The protests around the homes of the justices are every bit as bad as the protest at the Capitol Building on January 6, but the protesters in the two situations are being treated differently. Where is the rule of law?