The Dems' Reactions to Trump's Iran Strikes Proves Again That They Can't Be...
Whose Side Are Democrats Really On?
Can the Left Ever Stop Its Craziness?
The Media Bombs With Its Coverage of the Iran Attack and Leaves Smoldering...
NYC Mayor's Race Watch: A Referendum on National Housing Policy?
A Wise and Frugal Government We Do Not Have, Nor a Virtuous One
Trump Did the Right Thing
There's Nobody to Talk to
The ‘First String’ Is Back in the Game
With Iran Destabilizing the Middle East, American Energy Is More Important Than Ever
Three Years Since Dobbs and the World’s Still Turning
The Senate Must Act to Bring College Costs Under Control
Three Years After Dobbs, the Result Is a Tale of Two Very Different...
One Big, Beautiful Bill: A Blueprint for America's Comeback
Hours After Trump Declares Ceasefire, Iran Denies Agreement, Blames Israel for Starting Wa...
Tipsheet

U.S. Marshals Were Told Not to Arrest Violent Protestors Outside of Supreme Court Justice's Homes

AP Photo/Anna Johnson

U.S. Marshals assigned to guard the Supreme Court Justice's home following the aftermath of Roe v. Wade being overturned last year were reportedly told not to make any arrests of violent protestors. 

Advertisement

According to training documents obtained by the office of Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala), "unless absolutely necessary," criminal enforcement action involving the protest or protestors, particularly in public space, was to be avoided. 

Previously, Attorney General Merrick Garland claimed that U.S. Marshals "have full authority to arrest people under any federal statute, including that federal statute." However, the training documents suggested that the Department of Justice lawyers believed applying the statute to peaceful protests directed at the justices would violate the First Amendment. 

"The 'intent of influencing any judge' language thus logically goes to threats and intimidation, not 1st [Amendment] protected protest activities," the training materials read, pointing out that arrests should only be made as a "last resort to present physical harm to the Justices and/or their families."

During a congressional hearing earlier this week, Britt presented those training documents to Garland, which he claims he has never seen before. 

"There's nothing for me to amend because, as I said, I've never seen those slides before," Garland said.

Advertisement

At the time of the protests, even Left-wing Washington Post admitted that the protests occurring at Justice's home were most likely illegal. 

"While protest is indeed ingrained in American democracy, legally speaking, the comparison between protesting a politician at home and a member of the judiciary at home is inexact. And experts say the latter category of protests is probably illegal regardless of how peaceful the demonstrations are," the Post said.

According to Title 18, Section 1507, of the U.S. Code, "with the intent of influencing any judge to picket or parade in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer… or with such intent, to resort to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence" is illegal. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement