The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Three Women Sentenced to Probation for Interrupting Oral Arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court"
From a Justice Department press release Tuesday:
Two Virginia women and an Arizona woman, who verbally interrupted oral arguments inside the United States Supreme Court, each pleaded guilty January 13, 2023, to a single count of Speeches and Objectionable Language in the Supreme Court Building. The defendants were sentenced to one-year terms of probation with stay-away orders from the U.S. Supreme Court.
According to court documents, on November 2, 2022, the Supreme Court held oral arguments the matter of Bittner v. United States. Emily Archer Paterson, 45, of McLean, VA, Nicole Elizabeth Enfield, 44, of Alexandria, VA, and Rolande Baker, 71, of Tucson, AZ, attended the argument. The women spread out in the courtroom, each sitting in a different area. Once arguments began, defendant Paterson stood up and loudly spoke out against the Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Ms. Paterson's conduct caused the attorney arguing before the Court to stop speaking so that Ms. Paterson could be escorted out of the room. After arguments resumed, Ms. Baker stood up and interrupted the Court in a similar manner. Following her removal, arguments resumed. Finally, Ms. Enfield stood up, causing a third interruption in the case at bar. Each defendant's conduct required the attorney before the Court to stop his argument so the defendant speaking could be removed from the courtroom.
"The government must be able to conduct its business." said U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves. "Interrupting Supreme Court proceedings, even non-violently and briefly, is not First-Amendment protected activity: it is a crime and must be treated as such."
Each defendant was charged with one count of the federal misdemeanor offense of Speeches and Objectionable Language in the Supreme Court Building. Each defendant promptly accepted responsibility for her conduct and entered a guilty plea.
Ms. Paterson, Ms. Enfield, and Ms. Baker were sentenced by the Honorable Judge Amit P. Mehta to one year of probation, with an order to stay away from the U.S. Supreme Court building and grounds.
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
Sounds like an insurrection to me. They should have kept them in the DC jail for 18 months before the trial.
Don’t be silly. These women were allowed into the Supreme Court by the relevant officials. Whereas the 6 Jan insurrectionists…..oh wait
These women following standard audience-admittance procedures were lawfully allowed into the Supreme Court by the relevant officials. Whereas the 6 Jan insurrectionists…battered a window with a seized police riot shield until it broke free of its frame, opening the Capitol to hundreds of rioters, insurrectionists and a good number of, ummm, peaceful protesters sing-songing Oh Nancy, where are you? and chanting Hang Mike Pence.
As many learned from Sesame Street at an early age:
One of these things is not like the other…both of these things are not the same.
Very few battered a window. Many strolled in as capitol police politely held the door open for them.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIbcmHHUYAQ-ks6?format=jpg&name=medium
Not even an obstruction charge? Carrying a dangerous weapon (shod foot)? All the creative prosecutors are on other cases and we're stuck with charging only the obvious crime.
I compare this to the January 6th folk -- these women were not denied bail or anything similar -- and did not have to serve any jail time.
In terms of the disruption, while it is an "apples versus oranges" comparison, the big distinction here is that the women were actually in the meeting room while the Jan 6 folk never made it into the House chamber -- there were more of them, but number of people who violated a law ought not serve as an enhancing factor.
And unlike the Jan 6th protest, this was clearly organized with each woman disrupting after the other -- although one does wonder what would have happened had all three started shouting at once.
The other question is what did this particular case have to do with Dobbs????
It was in front of the same court that issued the Dobbs ruling, obviously. This was just the first Supreme court hearing they'd gotten into.
And unlike the Jan 6th protest, this was clearly organized...
OK, OK, "Probably not organized by the FBI." Happy?
OK, that’s a little funny. We’ll try to get you guest shot on Gutfeld.
Really? That's the only important distinction that occurs to you?
What other ones would you suggest?
Or are you suggesting that punishment should be enhanced if there is a large number of other people doing the same thing? You wouldn't happen to have a citation supporting such a theory, would you?
And the other thing to remember is that SCOTUS actually had security while the CHPD were AWOL on Jan 6th.
Well, none of them was shot dead - - - - - - - -
Seems absurdly light, not requiring them to at least do some nominal amount of time in jail, or fining them the cost of the counsel's time. Would you get off that lightly interrupting a trial in a lower court? Somehow I doubt it.
The order to stay out seems utterly redundant, as they wouldn't have been allowed in again in the first place.
"The order to stay out seems utterly redundant, as they wouldn’t have been allowed in again in the first place."
Unless they are checking IDs and have a list of those who are banned, it is a lot harder to enforce something like that than you might think --- particularly with women who can change their appearance with relative ease.
What I don't understand is why this had to go through the USA's office -- don't courts have contempt powers of their own? Or is this Roberts being squishy and not wanting to get anyone upset with him?
Yeah, Roberts being squishy seems the most likely thing. He doesn't want to rile the pro-aborts any more than he can avoid.
What makes you think it did have to?
The disaffected
culture war casualty,
lathering his rubes
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
What, no conspiracy charges? Open and shut case.
(exercise for the reader - how would this have played out if the women were conservatives in favor of gun rights?)
In all probability they'd have gotten a year's probation and a stayaway order.
The most egregious hypocrisy is surely the completely hypothetical kind!
Don't be shy. What do you think would have been different?
Repeating Dr. Ed’s question, doesn’t the Supreme Court have contempt powers?
“A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
“(1)Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;” [two other types of contempt listed]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401
Yes.
Your point?
So defensive!
I mention the Court's contempt power on a *legal* blog, and the only "discussion" is to wonder why I'm bringing it up?
Isn't this a classic contempt situation - making a disturbance in the courtroom? Isn't it customary to summarily convict the offender(s) without referring the matter to local prosecutors?
(After all, judges agree that judges have the power to summarily convict offenders in these cases.)
Equal justice under the law. What a joke that has become.
This is not like Jan 06. For one, no one was hunting the Justices, nor were there weapons.
The evidence that the intent of Jan 06 was violent, and not just disruptive has become quite strong - from the social media posts before and during, to the gear they showed up with, to the running through the halls hunting the Reps, to the assaults of police, to the refusing orders to not break into where the Reps were to the point of getting tragically shot.
Y'all are equating to very different things, and it's incredible to see.
Still, not even a fine to cover the counsel's time? That's crazy!
Most of the people charged did none of those things. There are videos of people just walking thru the velvet rope lines just looking around, they got charged anyway.
They charged people who never entered the actual Capitol as well.
Over two years late they are still actively seeking people to charge them with non-violent misdemeanors.
Its a political persecution prettied up as law enforcement.
Quit whining, clinger.
Or not. You're a powerless, vanquished culture war casualty either way.
And what did they get charged with, and what was their sentence?