The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
No First Amendment Right to Obstruct Diplomatic Motorcades
From U.S. v. Jin, decided Oct. 15 by a D.C. Circuit panel (Judges Rogers, Jackson, and Silberman), but just posted on Westlaw:
This case arises from the conviction of Yuehua Jin for interfering with the progress of a diplomatic motorcade that was traveling through Washington, D.C. Jin wanted to submit a complaint to Chinese Vice Premier Liu He who was meeting with the United States Secretary of the Treasury in May 2019. On May 9, Jin was holding up a piece of paper and shouting from the sidewalk in protest of the Chinese delegation. Jin attempted to run into the street several times, but police officers restrained her from entering an area that had been closed off to pedestrian traffic near the United States Trade Representative building.
The officers told Jin she would be arrested if she ran into the street again. Officers continued to block Jin from entering the street until the delegation departed. The next day, as the delegation was returning from a meeting in a motorcade with lights and sirens on, Jin ran into the street, stood directly in front of the oncoming motorcade, and held a piece of paper above her head. The motorcade had to brake hard and swerve to avoid hitting Jin. A nearby officer, who observed the incident, ran toward Jin, removed her from the street, and placed her under arrest.
The United States charged Jin with attempting to obstruct a foreign official in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 112(b)(2)[,] … a Class B misdemeanor punishable by no more than six-months imprisonment, a fine of $5,000, or both….
[Jin argues] that, as applied to her, 18 U.S.C. § 112(b)(2) limited her ability to speak and therefore violated her First Amendment rights. To be sure, when Jin obstructed the Vice Premier's motorcade, she was engaged in expressive activity. But that does not end our analysis.
Section 112(b)(2) is a content-neutral law. "A content-neutral regulation will be sustained under the First Amendment if it advances important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests." That is, we apply intermediate scrutiny. "Under this standard a government regulation is constitutional if (1) it is within the constitutional power of the Government; (2) it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; (3) the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; (4) the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest; and (5) the regulation leaves open ample alternative channels for communication."
We conclude that, as applied to Jin, section 112(b)(2) satisfies intermediate scrutiny. First, the government has an important interest in protecting foreign officials and visitors. Second, there is no evidence in the record that the government's enforcement of section 112(b)(2) against Jin was motivated by the content of her speech or suppressing speech in general. Third, Jin had ample alternative channels to communicate her message. Notably, Jin was not arrested on May 9 when she held up her piece of paper and shouted from the sidewalk as the Vice Premier's motorcade approached.
To be sure, enforcing section 112(b)(2) against Jin had an incidental impact on her expressive conduct. But that incidental restriction was not greater than necessary to further a legitimate governmental interest. Accordingly, Jin's conviction under section 112(b)(2) does not violate the First Amendment.
Quite right, of course.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Shopkeepers should host consulates in their stores, and persuade the consul to constantly drive back and forth from the shop.
Then maybe the government would arrest rioters for once - for violating diplomatic premises or obstructing a foreign diplomat.
She should have been arrested for attempted suicide, and committed for observation.
Would that this protected the citizen commuter, the parent, or anyone else with business at the other end of a roadway.
No, the police exist to protect government officials, especially diplomats from important countries.
These officials are the representatives of millions of people - and surely the police should be more protective of someone who represents millions than of some schlub who only represents himself or herself.
Is it ok to stand in front of tanks?
What do you mean by OK?
To put it another way, nobody doubts that under applicable law, refusing to leave a Woolworths in the South when you were asked to was a trespass and could be prosecuted. But civil disobedience, where you violate unjust laws and go to jail, is part of the protest toolkit.
I think he's trying to draw a parallel between Jin and 'Tank Man' from the Tienanmen Square protests. Both involved standing in the road and China, after all.
It's a terrible attempt, and completely ignores the circumstances of both, but it isn't completely random.
Your standing front of the tank is just fine, as is its driver refusing to stop or even swerve.
No 1A right to block any traffic in any street.