Katie Britt unearths scandal: Justice Department ignored the law near justices’ homes
Quin Hillyer
Video Embed
First-year Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) embarrassed Attorney General Merrick Garland and exposed intentional dereliction of duty by Justice Department officials telling federal marshals not to arrest people illegally demonstrating at the homes of Supreme Court justices.
This should be treated as a real scandal, and explosive.
SEN. KATIE BRITT SECURES TOP GOP SPOT ON SUBCOMMITTEE.
At a March 28 Appropriations subcommittee meeting, Britt showed slides used “to train and prepare the marshals for their protective detail at the home of the justices,” through which they were “actively discouraged” from arresting protesters for violating 18 U.S.C. §1507 of the U.S. Code. That statute makes it illegal to picket, parade, or demonstrate outside the residence of “any judge, juror, witness, or court officer” in order to influence a court decision.
For weeks after the leak of a draft decision in the Dobbs anti-abortion case, pro-choice activists picketed outside justices’ homes, often quite loudly. One loon even planned to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, but fortunately lost his nerve. Kavanaugh, it should be noted, had two minor daughters who presumably could feel intimidated by the targeted protests.
Yet the marshals’ training wrongly said the pickets were a “1
st
A[mendment] protected activity.” Even strong free-speech advocates know this is risible nonsense, as courts repeatedly have ruled and as even liberal news outlets have emphatically acknowledged. As the Supreme Court wrote in Cox v. Louisiana (1965), “The constitutional safeguards relating to the integrity of the criminal process attend every stage of a criminal proceeding… [and] they exclude influence or domination by either a hostile or friendly mob.”
Despite the explicit court rulings and even more explicit 18 U.S.C. §1507, the slides instructed the marshals’ that the law even allows the protesters at the justices’ homes “to be rude, provocative, insulting, disrespectful, loud, critical, dismissive, and offensive.” Despite the Justice Department’s absolute duty to enforce the law, the marshals were told to “avoid, unless absolutely necessary, criminal enforcement actions involving the protest.” And if marshals did feel that a clear, physical threat to justices necessitated arrests, even then they should first consult with the “appropriate” U.S. Attorney’s Office.
These instructions are the epitome of lawlessness. Even if some numbskull at the Justice Department believes that mountains of caselaw should be overturned in order to treat those protests as protected First Amendment activity, the job of the department is to enforce existing law. Nobody is saying the marshals shouldn’t be able to warn protesters first, to make sure they understand the law, but if protesters continue to disobey, they should be arrested.
It would then be up to the arrested protesters to make their First Amendment arguments in court, which is the proper forum. It is not a prerogative of Justice Department underlings to ignore the law in the meantime.
Britt grilled Garland for apparently misleading testimony he gave at a March 1 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, when he said “the Marshals on the ground … have full authority to arrest people under any federal statute, including that federal statute.” Obviously, they were denied that authority. Garland expressed ignorance about the slides, but that dodge shouldn’t suffice. Congress has well-established oversight rights over federal agencies. Knowing the expressed interest of so many senators in why nobody was arrested for illegal picketing, it was Garland’s duty to follow up. He does, after all, run the Justice Department. When a senator can find the training slides, Garland has no excuse for feigning surprise at them.
“From a bipartisan perspective, people don’t like being lied to in the Senate,” said Britt’s spokesman Sean Ross. “There certainly is going to be a follow up.” And: “The question is whether Garland knowingly or unknowingly gave truthful testimony to the Judiciary Committee.”
Garland should have just two choices: Either find out and publicly report who created the improper training slides (which is what he told Britt he would do), and then reprimand or even fire the person, or else resign from office himself.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“People want justice to be blind,” Britt said. “They believe that is a foundational building block of our nation.”
Garland repeatedly has despoiled that building block. His politically charged, corrupt regime as attorney general, of which this is just the latest example, should not be allowed to continue.