WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee
Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), called on the Justice Department to
prioritize the protection of Supreme Court Justices who’ve been the targets of
sustained threats following the unprecedented leak of a draft opinion last
week. In a
letter
early this afternoon to Attorney General Merrick Garland, Grassley called
on the Department to enforce existing laws that prohibit demonstrations at the
homes of justices intended to intimidate or influence forthcoming court
actions. Following Grassley’s letter, the department
announced
it is dispatching the U.S. Marshals Service to assist the Supreme Court Police
with security for justices.
In the
letter, Grassley noted that the White House has done little to discourage
dangerous activity, even as left-wing activists publicized justices’ home
addresses and organized demonstrations. Grassley also cited statutes
prohibiting such targeted protests.
“The
President may choose to characterize protests, riots, and incitements of
violence as mere passion. But these attempts to influence and intimidate
members of the federal judiciary are an affront to judicial independence. No
fair-minded person can question that ‘such conduct inherently threatens the
judicial process,’” Grassley wrote.
“After
this administration chose to publicly and vigorously marshal the Justice
Department’s resources in response to a letter from the administration’s allies
on school boards, the tepid response to the demonstrations against the justices
has been deeply concerning. It took this administration just five days to
forcefully respond to a letter concerning the supposedly grave risk posed by
parents seeking to have a say in how their children are taught in schools. The
serious threats to the Supreme Court demand no less of a robust response,” Grassley
wrote.
Grassley
urged the department to publicly commit to protecting the justices and hold
accountable those who seek to intimidate the court into changing its decision.
May 11, 2022
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
The
Honorable Merrick Garland
Attorney
General of the United States
950
Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington,
DC, 20530
Dear
Attorney General Garland:
Since
the unprecedented leak of a draft of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,
I’ve watched this administration’s refusal to condemn the efforts to threaten
and intimidate the justices with grave disappointment. I’ve waited for this administration to commit
to protecting the justices from violence and to denounce the effort by far-left
activists to undermine the independence of the judiciary and influence judges
through protests at their homes. As the
Ranking Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have serious concerns about
the safety of the justices and the attacks on our judiciary. I urge you to publicly commit to protecting
the justices, and to condemn and prosecute anyone seeking to threaten and
intimidate the Court into changing its decision.
Protesting
and rioting near the Supreme Court or the justices’ homes to influence their
decisions is illegal. 18 U.S.C. § 1507
states that anyone who “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 [a] judge” “with the intent of influencing any judge . . . in the
discharge of his duty . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than one year, or both.”
It is
beyond dispute that far-left activists have launched a concerted and
coordinated effort to intimidate the Court into changing the draft
Dobbs decision. As the
Washington
Post recently reported, “[p]rotestors outside Brett M. Kavanaugh’s house
warned the Supreme Court justice this weekend, ‘If you take away our choices,
we will riot.’”
[1] Demonstrators outside Justice Samuel A.
Alito’s home chanted “Abort the court!”
[2] These are plainly efforts to bully the Court
in response to the leaked
Dobbs opinion.
But
instead of investigating and prosecuting this illegal activity, the
administration has been sadly dismissive of the threats and danger to both the
justices and our judicial system writ large. The White House Press Secretary refused to
characterize progressive activists targeting justices’ homes with protests as
“extreme.”
[3]
Instead, she explained that “the
President’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of
sadness.”
[4]
Confusingly, she went on to say, “I
don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest.”
[5]
The
Press Secretary’s unwillingness to condemn threats of violence and intimidation
does not change the law or what the official U.S. government position ought to
be: protesting outside the homes of the justices to intimidate them into
deciding a case a certain way is illegal.
The President
may choose to characterize protests, riots, and incitements of violence as mere
passion. But these attempts to influence
and intimidate members of the federal judiciary are an affront to judicial
independence. No fair-minded person can
question that “such conduct inherently threatens the judicial process.”
[6]
The
consequences of this administration’s unwillingness to act have been predictable.
Activists published the justices’ home locations and announced plans to
continue protesting outside of those justices’ residences. The justices are limiting public appearances.
[7]
Eight-foot fencing has been erected
around the Supreme Court.
[8]
According to news reports, “the nine
Supreme Court justices have been given extra security since general threats of
violence against the justices have increased.” Targeted personal threats have increased too.
[9]
As you
yourself have said, “[t]hreats against public servants are not only illegal,
they run counter to our nation’s core values.”
[10] Unfortunately, the American public has heard
little from the Justice Department about threats against the public servants
serving on the Supreme Court. After this administration chose to publicly and
vigorously marshal the Justice Department’s resources in response to a letter
from the administration’s allies on school boards, the tepid response to the
demonstrations against the justices has been deeply concerning. It took this administration just five days to
forcefully respond to a letter concerning the supposedly grave risk posed by
parents seeking to have a say in how their children are taught in schools.
[11] The serious threats to the Supreme Court
demand no less of a robust response.
This
administration’s response also fails to recognize the foundational interests
protected by 18 U.S.C. § 1507. First, the
law addresses real concerns about the increased threats of physical harm to a
judge and the risks that the judicial process could be influenced by protests
and demonstrations. Second, it is directed at countering the pernicious effect
that the public could believe that one side in a dispute has resorted to mob
tactics to win a case that they could not through the legal process.
A fair
and just judicial system cannot abide “influence or domination by either a
hostile or friendly mob. There is no
room at any stage of judicial proceedings for such intervention; mob law is the
very antithesis of due process.”
[12]
It should surprise no one, then, that
the government is authorized to take measures to assure that judicial
proceedings are not influenced by outside forces. Such protections are “obviously a safeguard
both necessary and appropriate” to meet that goal.
[13]
The
Justice Department has been charged with protecting the integrity of the
judicial process through this criminal statute. “[U]nhindered and untrammeled” courts are
“part of the very foundation of our constitutional democracy.”
[14] After all, as you have said, there cannot be
“one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans; One rule for friends and
another for foes; One rule for the powerful and another for the powerless; One
rule for the rich and another for the poor; Or different rules depending upon
one's race or ethnicity.”
[15] “The success of the Department of Justice
depends upon the trust of the American people. That trust must be earned every day.”
[16] You need to take prompt and decisive action
to earn that trust by committing to protecting the justices and the integrity
and independence of the Court.
Sincerely,
Chuck
Grassley
Ranking
Member
Judiciary
Committee
-30-
[1] Marc A. Thiessen,
Protesting at Justices’ Homes is
Illegal. What is Biden Doing About It?,
Wash. Post, May 10, 2022,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/10/abortion-protest-supreme-court-justice-homes-brett-kavanaugh-samuel-alito-john-roberts-illegal/;
see also Rafael Sanchez-Cruz,
Pro-Choice Protests Outside Maryland Homes
of Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh, WUSA 9, May 8, 2022,
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/protests/pro-choice-protests-outside-the-homes-of-justices-roberts-and-kavanaugh/65-eebbc2e2-7593-4eaa-9992-f34383a6544f.
[6] See Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 566, 85 S. Ct. 476, 481, 13 L.
Ed. 2d 487 (1965) (discussing crowds demonstrating near a courthouse and
upholding the constitutionality of a state law based on 18 U.S.C. § 1507).
[8] Ed O’Keefe,
Supreme Court justices get increased security after Roe v. Wade leak:
“The risk is real”, CBS News, May 6, 2022,
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-justices-security-roe-v-wade-abortion/.
[12] Cox, 379 U.S. at 562 (citing
Frank
v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 347 (1915) (Holmes, J., dissenting)).