Image 01 Image 03

DOJ Memo Told U.S. Marshals Not to Arrest Protestors Outside of SCOTUS Justices’ Homes

DOJ Memo Told U.S. Marshals Not to Arrest Protestors Outside of SCOTUS Justices’ Homes

“The training materials told the Marshals ‘to avoid, unless absolutely necessary, any criminal enforcement action involving the protestors.'”

Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) revealed during a March 28 hearing that a Department of Justice memo told U.S. Marshals not to arrest protestors outside of SCOTUS justices’ homes after someone leaked Justice Alito’s opinion overturning Roe v. Wade in May.

SCOTUS officially overturned Roe v. Wade in June.

18 U.S. Code § 1507 states:

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, 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 such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

However, Britt showed that the memo used this section to not make “arrests on the basis” of the section. The DOJ told the U.S. Marshals to arrest people as a “last resort”:

But newly uncovered materials used to train Marshals to protect the homes of SCOTUS justices show that they were “actively discouraged” from making arrests on grounds of this statute, Britt said.

“Those materials show that the Marshals likely didn’t make any arrests because they were actively discouraged from doing so,” Britt said.

The training materials told the Marshals “to avoid, unless absolutely necessary, any criminal enforcement action involving the protestors.”

Marshals were also told, “Making arrests and initiating prosecutions is not the goal of the [Marshal Service] presence at SCOTUS residences.”

“The ‘not’ is actually italicized and underlined,” Britt noted.

The next slide of the training “not to engage in protest-related enforcement actions, beyond those that were strictly and immediately necessary and tailored to ensure the physical security of the justices.”

The training materials said the protestors might have “a First Amendment right” to protest at the homes even though, you know, Section 1507 prohibits doing so.

It’s weird.

Attorney General told Congress that “the decision to arrest protestors lies with U.S. Marshals.” He claimed the decision was not up to the attorney general.

When confronted, Garland insisted he never saw the training materials:

“Mr. Attorney General, were you, at any point before your testimony in front of the Judiciary Committee, aware of these training materials or the fact that the Marshals had been heavily discouraged from making arrests under Section 1507?” Britt asked.

“This is the first time I’ve seen this slide,” Garland said.

But Garland said that despite appearances to the contrary, Marshals were still theoretically permitted to make arrests.

“[The Marshals] first and principle job is to protect the lives and property of the members of the court,” Garland said. Garland also said that he was the first attorney general to ever order the Marshals to protect the homes of SCOTUS justices.

“That’s their first priority,” Garland continued. “But that doesn’t mean they are in any way precluded from bringing other kinds of arrests.”

Britt concluded her questioning with a plea for Garland to look into the issue and amend his comments to the Judiciary Committee if needed.

“There’s nothing to amend because I’ve never seen those slides,” Garland said.

“It’s clear the Marshals were given a different directive,” Britt concluded.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Garland is lying as usual. His corrupt DoJ is currently prosecuting a guy for making a meme, but intimidating judges outside their homes is A-OK.

    buck61 in reply to Paddy M. | March 29, 2023 at 4:36 pm

    Let’s see some protestors out in front of Judge Kelly’s home and see just how fast people get arrested

      Milhouse in reply to buck61. | March 29, 2023 at 4:54 pm

      Bullshit. They would not be arrested either.

        Suburban Farm Guy in reply to Milhouse. | March 29, 2023 at 8:10 pm

        You’ve not noticed a slight imbalance in prosecutorial priorities of late?


        BLSinSC in reply to Milhouse. | March 30, 2023 at 9:18 am

        Why don’t YOU go and FIND OUT?? Put YOUR MOUTH where the “Money” is!! You always have “weasel words” to contradict most every article I read on here and ALWAYS sound like a DEMOcrat propaganda talking point! Now occasionally you might through in an HONEST comment but the overwhelming trend is to steer conversations away from the truth! SO MR. KNOWITALL – how about YOU haul over to one of the homes you are so sure YOU can PROTEST and ACT like a crazed Republican – red hat and all and let’s see what happens! I think we ALL know why you won’t do that! I think you’re some kind of paid troll, but I don’t think you are stupid!

        DJ9 in reply to Milhouse. | March 30, 2023 at 1:15 pm

        Anyone who thinks that Leftists would be consistent in their politically-based actions over any given time period longer than one second simply hasn’t been paying attention. They change their stance/positions ALL THE TIME, with little or no reasons.

        See current example: some Leftists supporting the use of firearms by trans people to prevent attacks from supposed attackers, after telling the rest of us for DECADES that firearms are useless for personal defense.

By using the diversion that he hadn’t seen that particular slide (or slide set), he lied. He lied because the decision was made at the Department and as the AG he is responsible for all executive decisions made by the Department. Orders to avoid arrests while “protecting” SCOTUS Justices aren’t made by some low level GS-12.

So he lied, not a big deal for cabinet members in this administration. For that matter, not a big deal for members of the Socialist/Communist Party but rather a common occurrence. When they aren’t using subterfuge to lie they are filibustering questions with inane bravo sierra to avoid telling the lie when under oath.

Sounds like he broke the law. Sounds like maybe someone needs to arrest everyone involved. Why should it have to be another federal agency?

    Camperfixer in reply to GWB. | March 29, 2023 at 11:25 am

    My exact thought as well. Nearly everyone in this Administration is a criminal requiring an orange jumpsuit and a lot of time to themselves behind bars.

    Milhouse in reply to GWB. | March 29, 2023 at 5:01 pm

    Really? What law did he break? Even if he had directed that the marshals be given that instruction, how would it break the law?

      SDN in reply to Milhouse. | March 29, 2023 at 5:17 pm

      “Shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

      Congress passed the law.
      It is his duty to ensure it is enforced.

      Simple enough even for a Milhouse.

        Milhouse in reply to SDN. | March 29, 2023 at 8:11 pm

        That is not a law, and nobody can be arrested for failing to do so. On the contrary, the executive has the discretion not to enforce even a clear law if it doesn’t think it would be in the public interest.

Garland also said that he was the first attorney general to ever order the Marshals to protect the homes of SCOTUS justices.

That’s because you are the most politically corrupt attorney general in history and they knew you wouldn’t do a damned thing about it you slimy lying moron.

Junior people, like the ones you are trying to blame this on, just don’t DO things like that without the knowledge of the commissars in systems like yours.

” ag garland, are you responsible for the actions of your staff and those under your direction, yes or no? “

    henrybowman in reply to texansamurai. | March 29, 2023 at 4:25 pm

    If he didn’t agree with their actions (rather, inactions), he would have said something at the time, when those inactions were blatantly obvious to everybody, including him.

So trespassing and parading are Federal felonies worthy of sending teams of armed FBI agents to the ends of the country in order to conduct midnight raids and hold suspects without bail for multiple years…. except if the offenses occur in front of the homes of SCOTUS justices that the administration really doesn’t like.

Good to know the rules.

    Milhouse in reply to georgfelis. | March 29, 2023 at 4:59 pm

    The first amendment doesn’t protect trespassing, or “parading” on property you’re not entitled to be on. But it does protect protesting in a public street, in front of a judge’s home, so long as the intent is not to influence his vote.

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | March 29, 2023 at 5:59 pm

      More precisely it protects the right to protest on the sidewalk in accordance with the noise ordinance, use of sound amplifying devices and not blocking the sidewalk to other pedestrian traffic or blocking the driveways of homes. You generally can’t protest in the street without a permit being issued b/c it is a safety problem among other violations.

        Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | March 29, 2023 at 8:12 pm

        Yes, but they were complying with all that. They were not stopping in front of the houses or blocking traffic.

          BierceAmbrose in reply to Milhouse. | March 29, 2023 at 11:40 pm

          That’s not the footage I saw.

          Nor have I seen their protest permits in any of the reporting I saw on the disruptive, loud. unarmed folks outside justices houses before a decision was rendered, protesting against the leaked draft of that same decision. Naming the case as they protested.

          But they weren’t trying to influence the decision, so I have been informed. This, too, looks a whole lot different to me.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 29, 2023 at 11:44 pm

          That’s right, they weren’t trying to influence the judges’ vote. They were protesting the judges’ vote. There’s a huge difference. They had no hope or expectation that the judges would change their minds just because of them. They expected them to vote on the final decision as they had already voted on the draft, and they were expressing their disapproval.

          To arrest any one of them you’d have to honestly believe that that one actually thought he could change the judge’s mind by such actions, and you’d have to be able to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. That’s impossible.

          BLSinSC in reply to Milhouse. | March 30, 2023 at 9:22 am

          Were you there? Did you SEE what they did? NO – and notice how you changed your stance when the subject of a PERMIT came up?? AND just WHY would anyone be “protesting” in front of a JUDGE’S HOME other than to INTIMIDATE?? Really? Don’t try to play dumb – we know you’re not capable of that! WHY would anyone PROTEST in front of a JUDGE’s HOME other than to INTIMIDATE??

2smartforlibs | March 29, 2023 at 12:22 pm

I think we all know the DOJ is run by a political hack that has no business in the job.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to 2smartforlibs. | March 29, 2023 at 2:51 pm

    Actually, since his real job is protecting the regime from the law and Constitution, he is actually doing it rather well.

    Subotai Bahadur

This confirms the importance of MOVING ON from 2020, ACKNOWLEDGING REALITY, and nominating somebody who could win.

The DOJ is an arm of the presidency, we can not stop it without holding the presidency.

Whatever your feelings we need to win the White House.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Danny. | March 29, 2023 at 2:52 pm

    How does one win the White House when the Left is in control of counting [and inventing] the votes?

    Subotai Bahadur

      The count is honest, we win by nominating people fighting for the future who the public hasn’t made a decision about.

        CommoChief in reply to Danny. | March 29, 2023 at 4:02 pm


        I agree that the results of the 2020 election are final. Even if we stipulate that the count of the ballots was honest that doesn’t mean the procedures where the ballots were selected or rejected for the count were honest. There were lots of irregular actions that differed substantially from normal election practices in 2020.

      iconotastic in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | March 29, 2023 at 4:56 pm

      “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”

      Democrat hero, Josef Stalin

      CapeBuffalo in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | March 29, 2023 at 5:11 pm

      The only logical solution to the problem is for the Right to adopt, use, and even improve upon the techniques and tricks the left has used to subvert our elections. President Trump has mentioned using the methods to counteract the left BUT the noise he is making about Governor Desantis is drowning out the message. The Republican Party should be all out on a get the votes ” Manhatan Project”.
      We must do as the left or wither and die.

    henrybowman in reply to Danny. | March 29, 2023 at 4:28 pm

    So then — vote harder, and elect someone that the Swamp will just ignore and subvert as handily as they did Trump. Yup, sounds like the path to victory to me. Victory for the nominee, maybe, because he gets a sweet pension… but not so much for the rest of us.

    The rest of us understand by now that There Is No Voting Our Way Out of This.

    BLSinSC in reply to Danny. | March 30, 2023 at 9:26 am

    You mean like MOVEON the ORGANIZATION?? I do agree that 2020 should not be the FOCUS of the 2024 elections, but IF we still had an HONEST government and society the evidence that has been presented would be enough to create a SYSTEM that the DEMOcrats can’t control and use to install their people! I guess everyone would be fine if a predominantly Republican area had 150% voter turnout and every vote – EVERY ONE – after the DEMOcrat observers were excused/sent home/thrown out – of the votes was for the Republican!! Yeah – let’s see how far THAT gets!

The Gentle Grizzly | March 29, 2023 at 12:30 pm

If a Republican is elected president, his first act should be to break precedent and FIRE cabinet and department heads, not wait for their courtesy resignation letters.

    Nice idea, but generally appointees are gone already. They submitted their resignation to the previous administration before they became previous so little bonuses and rewards could be sprinkled on their departure. The subordinates (Civil Service and other non-appointees) are holding up the day-to-day tasks while the boss is technically there but actually in another state, getting set up for their next job. Civil Service can do the job for months, sometimes years while appointees are getting arranged. On occasion, whole administrations have gone by without appointee department heads or other appointees, and considering that some appointees have absolutely no idea what their job entails, that can be a good thing.

      Gosport in reply to georgfelis. | March 30, 2023 at 3:20 am

      It’s not like they have their allegiance tattooed on their foreheads.

      Some stay and some leave when regimes change, But a significant amount of them stick around as sleeper cells or to to put if bluntly, spies. Feigning vanilla, apolitical, impartiality while actually working behind the scenes to undermine their ideological opponents, as Trump realized too late.

““This is the first time I’ve seen this slide,” Garland said.”

Not the first time he has seen the content, but the first time he’s seen “the slide.”

Utterly corrupt and bitter.

Does it matter that he never saw it? Isn’t he the boss? He needs to own it.

“Marshals were still theoretically permitted to make arrests”

Leave it to Biden’s lackey AG to introduce theoretical law enforcement.

Garland is using the Sargent Schultz defense, he knows nothing of the matter..

Democrats and their minions are getting more bold in their violence against their enemies.

Nothing to see here, folks; move along.

The cliché is becoming a cliché. Grrr.

SeekingRationalThought | March 29, 2023 at 2:45 pm

As an attorney myself, Garland is an embarrassment to the profession. Even if his actions have been legal, which I doubt, they have not been either ethical or moral. As an educated man and lawyer, he knows that legality is the lowest level of morality but doesn’t seem to care about doing more than that minimum. That’s, if he cares at all.

Subotai Bahadur | March 29, 2023 at 2:55 pm

It is all so much simpler than you think.

Neither the law nor the Constitution places any restrictions anymore on the Left in this country.

Subotai Bahadur

Aren’t we all ecstatic that he’s not sitting on SCOTUS

And nobody is going to get as much as a slap on the wrist. So, until Republicans become good at/comfortable with weaponizing the alphabet agencies expect more of the same.

Steven Brizel | March 29, 2023 at 4:51 pm

This is another example of Biden weaponizing the government to protect his base

To arrest someone under section 1507 the marshals would have had to prove that the person”s intent was to influence the judge’s vote. Good luck doing that. It’s obvious that the majority of protesters had no such intent.

The training materials said the protestors might have “a First Amendment right” to protest at the homes even though, you know, Section 1507 prohibits doing so.

Um, excuse me? Section 1507 does not override the first amendment! And knowingly arresting someone for protected speech would invite a Bivens suit against the marshal.

    artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | March 29, 2023 at 11:27 pm

    What do you think their purpose was then? It’s far from obvious that that was not the intent, by terrorizing them. And this “training” was to help them terrorize them, to remove the justices’ protection from being terrorized.

    Someone needs to go to prison for this. I don’t know if it’s Garland, but his “I know nothing!” (Sgt. Schulz reference) defense is not obviously correct.

      Milhouse in reply to artichoke. | March 29, 2023 at 11:50 pm

      Their purpose was obvious and open: to protest, not to influence. They knew how these justices were planning to vote, and they had no expectation of changing their minds, so they were expressing their extreme disapproval, and trying to punish the justices for displeasing them.

      But it doesn’t have to be obvious that influencing them was not the intent; on the contrary, in order to arrest them it has to be obvious that it was,/i>, and you have to be able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. If you can’t do that you can’t arrest them.

      The training, which Garland may very well not have been informed of because it’s so standard, was to respect the first amendment and let them protest, and not try to use an inapplicable law in a manner that would very likely be unconstitutional, but to be alert for any sign of violence and arrest them for that if it happens.

        Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 29, 2023 at 11:51 pm

        Oops. LI staff, there are standard wordpress plugins that allow commenters to edit their own comments. You don’t have to do anything but install one of those.

          artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | March 30, 2023 at 1:31 am

          I assume that since this is a lawyer’s blog and comment section, he doesn’t want the evidence of what appeared here destroyed or altered. Could be wrong; that’s my working assumption.

          We all know it results in typos, certainly I’ve graced this place with many.

        artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | March 30, 2023 at 1:29 am

        To arrest you never need proof beyond reasonable doubt, only probable cause. And if they just wanted to protest, there are plenty of open parking lots and such where they could protest without disturbing anyone’s sleep or making them fear for their safety, as they observe that normal enforcement is not protecting them in the normal way from the mob in front of their house. So I’d call that probable cause.

        BLSinSC in reply to Milhouse. | March 30, 2023 at 9:30 am

        EVERYONE – I suggest that there’s no REASON or REASONING to reply to anything that MIlhouse posts – he’s OBVIOUSLY either a paid troll or a die hard DEMOcrat that’s so intent on hijacking every conversation! This will be my LAST reply to any of his posts. Oh, I might throw in a “sure thing troll” – nah – I wonder if soros pays by the number of replies and if it’s really a nickel!!!

          DaveGinOly in reply to BLSinSC. | March 30, 2023 at 8:34 pm

          You’re obviously new here. Stop running your yap about Milhouse. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

    BierceAmbrose in reply to Milhouse. | March 29, 2023 at 11:43 pm

    We can watch them proclaim their intent, if we can get all the footage, that is.

      Milhouse in reply to BierceAmbrose. | March 29, 2023 at 11:53 pm

      Nobody’s keeping any footage from you. But I don’t believe you could find any of them proclaiming that they’re trying to change the justices’ minds, even if you watched every single second of footage that exists.

Garland was confirmed as Attorney General on March 10, 2021 by a 70-30 vote, meaning he had a great deal of bi-partisan support in that time. The republicans who voted to confirm him were::

Blunt (R-MO)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Ernst (R-IA)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lankford (R-OK)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Portman (R-OH)
Romney (R-UT)
Rounds (R-SD)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)

I would wager that few of them if any regret their vote from that day.

Imagine being a US Marshal on that detail.

Told to essentially stand down and not enforce the law, having to watch those crazed protesters violate the law over and over and over, unable to control the situation.

Then when this lying little weasel Garland starts taking heat for the blatantly politically tiered “justice” system he administers, he throws the marshals under the bus. He says there were no prosecutions because the marshals didn’t arrest anyone. Must not have seen any crimes worthy of arrest, right?

Garland is utterly unprincipled. He is an evil, destructive tool.

If I was a US Marshal I would take this betrayal personally.

The urban criminal element is made up of “socially friendly elements”. A phrase I learned from Solzhenitsyn’s translators.