Why Thomas Massie's Ex-Girlfriend Came Forward With This Hush Money Story
These Students Want to Cancel a Speaker for Not Being Part of Their...
Bill Cassidy Goes After His Trump-Endorsed Opponent Over DEI – It's Not Going...
Three Reasons Why Virginia’s Redistricting Amendment Should Fail
The NY Times Continues Flailing Over Kristof's Column; Politico Warns Democrats Might Turn...
Mall Brats
Georgia Pro-Gun Bill's Veto Doesn't Mean What Anti-Gunners Seem to Think
We Now Know Why Brigitte Macron Slapped the French President Last Year
Nick Shirley Went to Cuba to Investigate Life Under Communism. Here's What He...
Fentanyl Playground: LA Is a Walking Campaign Ad for Spencer Pratt
Jim Jordan Torches Fairfax Commonwealth Attorney Over Quiet Website Change on Immigration...
U.S. Supreme Court Temporarily Restores Nationwide Mail Access to Abortion Pill
Mexican National Sentenced to 11 Years for Running Major U.S.-Mexico Border Smuggling Oper...
2018 West MI Woman of the Year Sentenced for Allegedly Stealing $1.4M Meant...
Trump Has the Cards for an AI Deal With China
Tipsheet

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

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