On The Front Lines
Victory: Declaring Ban ‘Repugnant’ to Constitution, Federal Court Affirms First Amdt. Rights of Protester Arrested in Front of U.S. Supreme Court
Click here to read The Rutherford Institute's reply brief in Hodge v. Talkin
Click here to read The Rutherford Institute's petition for a writ of certiorari in Hodge v. Talkin
Click here to read The Rutherford Institute's petition for rehearing filed in Hodge v. Talkin
Click here to read the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Hodge v. Talkin
Click here to read The Rutherford Institute's brief in Hodge v. Talkin
Click here to read the court's regulation "to protect the Supreme Court building and grounds, and persons and property thereon, and to maintain suitable order and decorum within the Supreme Court building and grounds."
Click here to read the court's ruling in Hodge v. Talkin, et al.
Click here to read The Rutherford Institute's complaint in Hodge v. Talkin, et al.
WASHINGTON, DC — Declaring a federal ban on expressive activity on the U.S. Supreme Court plaza to be “repugnant” to the Constitution, a District of Columbia federal court has struck down a 60-year-old statute which broadly prohibits speech and expression in front of the United States Supreme Court. The court’s ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by The Rutherford Institute on behalf of Harold Hodge, a 46-year-old African-American man who was arrested in January 2011 while standing silently in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building wearing a sign voicing his concerns about the government’s disparate treatment of African-Americans and Hispanics. In a ruling issued in Hodge v. Talkin, et al., District Court Judge Beryl L. Howell struck down a federal law that makes it unlawful to display any flag, banner or device designed to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement while on the grounds of the U.S. Supreme Court, declaring that the “the absolute prohibition on expressive activity [on the Supreme Court plaza] in the statute is unreasonable, substantially overbroad, and irreconcilable with the First Amendment.”
“Judge Howell’s frank, no-holds-barred ruling affirming the Supreme Court plaza as a free speech zone throws a lifeline to the First Amendment at a time when government officials are doing their best to censor, silence and restrict free speech activities,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “There are a good many things that are repugnant to the Constitution right now—mass surveillance of Americans, roadside strip searches, forcible DNA extractions, SWAT team raids, civil commitments for criticizing the government, etc.—but this ruling at least sends a message all is not lost as long as we still have some members of the judiciary who understand and abide by both the letter and the spirit of the rule of law, our U.S. Constitution.”
Click here to view footage of Harold Hodge's protest.
On January 28, 2011, Harold Hodge quietly and peacefully stood in the plaza area near the steps leading to the United States Supreme Court Building, wearing a 3’ X 2’ sign around his neck that proclaimed: “The U.S. Gov. Allows Police To Illegally Murder And Brutalize African Americans And Hispanic People.” The plaza is a place where the public is allowed to gather and converse and is in all relevant respects like a public square or park where citizens have traditionally met to express their views on matters of public interest. However, Hodge was approached by a police officer who informed him that he was violating the law and issued him three warnings to leave the plaza. Hodge refused, was handcuffed, placed under arrest for violating 40 U.S.C. § 6135, moved to a holding cell, and then was transported to U.S. Capitol Police Headquarters where he was booked and given a citation. The charge was dismissed in September 2011 after Hodge complied with an agreement to stay away from the Supreme Court building and grounds for six months. In asking the U.S. District Court to declare 40 U.S.C. § 6135 unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in violation of the First Amendment, Rutherford Institute attorneys argued that absolute prohibition on speech and expression on the Supreme Court plaza is unreasonable and unnecessary to protect any legitimate governmental interest with respect to the Court or its proceedings. Affiliate attorney Jeffrey Light assisted The Rutherford Institute in securing the victory for Hodge.
04-19-2016: Rutherford Institute Pushes Back Against Government Efforts to Muzzle Free Speech & Establish a 'Cordon of Silence' in Front of U.S. Supreme Court
01-06-2016: Free Speech Double Standard: Rutherford Institute Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Declare Unconstitutional Its Own Ban on Expressive Activity on Plaza
11-05-2015: Federal Appeals Court Refuses to Reconsider Decision Upholding 60-Year-Old Ban on Expressive Activity on U.S. Supreme Court Plaza
10-19-2015: Rutherford Institute Asks Appeals Court to Reconsider Its Decision to Uphold 60-Year-Old Ban on Expressive Activity on U.S. Supreme Court Plaza
08-28-2015: First Amendment Setback: Federal Appeals Court Upholds 60-Year-old Ban on Expressive Activity on U.S. Supreme Court Plaza as 'Reasonable'
09-23-2014: Rutherford Institute Attorneys Present Oral Arguments in Hodge Case, Challenging Ban on Expressive Activity on U.S. Supreme Court Plaza
01-21-2014: Rutherford Institute Asks Appeals Court to Affirm Ruling that Ban on Expressive Activity on Supreme Court Plaza Is Unconstitutional
06-14-2013: In an Attempt to Override a Federal Court Ruling Permitting Expressive Activities on Plaza, Supreme Court Outlaws Expressive Activities
06-12-2013: Victory: Declaring Ban 'Repugnant' to Constitution, Federal Court Affirms First Amdt. Rights of Protester Arrested in Front of U.S. Supreme Court
04-26-2013: Oral Argument: Rutherford Institute Calls on Court to Protect First Amendment Rights of Man Arrested for Anti-Police Sign in Front of Supreme Court
Has the First Amendment Become an Exercise in Futility?