Supreme Court Could Get on Its Own Case ; High Court Finds Itself as Defendant in Suit Testing the Limits of Free Speech

Article excerpt

It is the kind of free-speech case that one might expect to wend its way through the legal system all the way up to the US Supreme Court.

An anti-abortion protester displays a series of large posters depicting in graphic detail the results of a particularly gruesome abortion method. The signs are shocking and offensive to many who walk by on the sidewalk, including busloads of children.

A security official confronts the protester, telling him that he must remove the posters or face arrest because they are in violation of a regulation that limits the size of protest signs.

When the protester says he is unaware of any size limits, he is informed that this particular regulation has just been adopted that same day. The protester refuses to remove his signs, which are confiscated, and the man is led away to jail.

What makes this scenario particularly interesting is that the government agency in question is the Supreme Court itself. As a result of the April 25 encounter, the high court now finds itself in the unusual position of being a defendant in a case that implicates some of the most basic freedoms in the US Constitution.

"Sweeping public speech off the sidewalk to improve the appearance of the court that is supposed to be protecting the right of freedom of speech is the antithesis of the rule of constitutional law," says James Matthew Henderson of the American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing the protester.

LAWYERS for the protester asked a federal judge to strike down the new regulation as a violation of the First Amendment.

Instead, US District Judge Thomas Hogan ruled last month that the new regulation was a reasonable means of maintaining "suitable order and decorum within the Supreme Court building and grounds."

The judge also ruled that there was no evidence to suggest that the high court's new regulation was adopted in an effort to muzzle the abortion protester by disrupting his demonstration.

The protester, the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, has accused the court of engaging in a form of censorship by adopting a regulation that he believes was aimed at undercutting a message court officials found disturbing.

Mr. Henderson has filed a motion asking Judge Hogan to reconsider his earlier ruling. If the judge refuses, Mr. Mahoney and Henderson have the option of taking the case to a federal appeals court panel. After that the case could, in theory, rise to the high court itself.

Some legal analysts say that, in light of similar protest-sign restrictions at the White House and Lafayette Park, the case faces an uphill battle. …

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.