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.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY