Courts

No, 18 USC §1507 Doesn't Make It A Crime To Protest The Supreme Court Over Abortion

Non-lawyers doing statutory interpretation is cute.

By  
on

dunce stupid moron stupidity LF RFThe other day, the New York Post published an op-ed written by Post columnist Karol Markowicz who is, to be clear, a political consultant and not an attorney. This is evident in the article, which argues that these protests amount to a violation of 18 USC §1507. Whether this was the first instance of this or not, this assertion keeps showing up in the dumbest corners of social media.

So I guess we’ve got to talk about this.

The statute reads in full:

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, 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, 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.

Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.

Armchair lawyers out there have managed to collapse this statute to “Whoever… pickets or parades… in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

Of course, clipping out large chunks of a statute is generally frowned upon.

Because everything after that first comma deals with efforts to influence a pending decision. That’s why those “intent” terms are in there. So what activities must a defendant intend to fall under this statute? Interfering… obstructing… impeding the administration of justice… it’s all about actions aimed at changing an outcome in an ongoing matter. This is then echoed by the next “intent” clause regarding influencing someone in the “discharge of his duty.” Because the judge’s “duty” doesn’t extend to every moment of their lives, but to actively adjudicating. There’s a whole bunch to say about how present participles work, but hopefully that’s enough for most folks with passing literacy.

Sponsored

That the statute explicitly clarifies that it runs concurrently with contempt power is yet another sign that it’s tied to the proceeding itself in case you just want to pile on.

If protestors staked out Kavanaugh’s house to yell at him during deliberations over Dobbs, there’s a colorable case for obstruction.

Protesting after the fact is… not.

Which we also know because that’s what the entire chapter is about! Chapter 73 of Title 18 includes laws against messing with process servers and witness tampering — protecting the sanctity of proceedings.

We could toss around a bunch of Latin ejusdem generis, noscitur a sociis, in pari materia, and what not but that’s going to go over the heads of anyone spreading this nonsense. Lawyers out there who hear this argument should be prepared to break it down like you would explain it to a particularly precocious four-year-old, because that’s the mentality out there.

Sponsored

We’ve written a lot about the growing protests aimed at the Supreme Court majority in Dobbs. Despite the hate mail and tweets that come in, we’re not actually saying that these protests are good or bad, just that the sort of time, place, and manner restrictions that conservatives seem to want applied against these protests have already been struck down… by conservatives. Back when protesters were following Planned Parenthood receptionists — who don’t have federal marshals protecting them — to their homes to hurl insults at them all night, the Supreme Court thought it was totally awesome and ruled that those restrictions infringed upon the First Amendment.

Whatever you think of the protests, the conservatives on the Supreme Court made their bed and should have to lie in it… while people protest outside.

HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Topics

, , , ,