Legal News

Protests on the Supreme Court Grounds Still Not Allowed
Download PDF
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

Supreme Court protests

Summary: While some may not understand the importance of the Supreme Court to remain a neutral place, the courts have upheld the rule that no protests are allowed on the property.

Protests are not allowed outside the U.S. Supreme Court building. The closest they can be to the “Equal Justice Under Law” building is the sidewalk. A federal appeals court panel has upheld the 1949 law.


The Supreme Court is supposed to be the ultimate protector of constitutional rights, the guarantee of protest and free speech. A law in 1949 made it unlawful to demonstrate on the high court’s grounds in order to make sure the building remained neutral.

The concern is that allowing a party to protest their views outside the building may give the public the idea that the building and the justices inside were swayed to one viewpoint. “Allowing demonstrations directed at the Court, on the Court’s own front terrace, would tend to yield the opposite impression: that of a Court engaged with – and potentially vulnerable to – outside entreaties by the public.”

The 50-foot-wide sidewalks surrounding the court can be filled with protestors of controversial cases busy chanting, bullhorn blaring, and flag waving. The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 that the sidewalk would be allowed for protesting.

Get JD Journal in Your Mail

Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!

Critics find the ruling hypocritical. The Court allows protestors to demonstrate their view outside abortion clinics but the same can’t be done outside their building. For a building to represent freedom of speech, especially political speech, the fact that they can’t do so in front of the building may not seem fair.

A U.S District Judge had sided against the law in 2013, stating “it cannot possibly be consistent with the First Amendment for the government to so broadly prohibit expression in virtually any form in front of a courthouse, even the Supreme Court.” The Supreme Court followed with their own rules.




Interesting Legal Sites You May Like




Search Now

Mid to Senior Level Labor and Employment Attorney

USA-CA-San Francisco

San Francisco office is seeking a mid to senior level labor and employment attorney.

Apply Now

Litigation Lawyer


Somerset office of our client seeks litigation lawyer with experience.

Apply Now

Senior Trademark Attorney


Denver office of our client seeks senior trademark attorney with 7+ years of prosecution experience....

Apply Now

Mid-level Corporate Associate Attorney

USA-NY-New York City

New York City office of our client seeks mid-level corporate associate attorney with 3-5 years of ex...

Apply Now


Associate Counsel


Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California (WCIRB) is seeking an Associate Co...

Apply now

Law Student Intern


2nd-3rd year law student. Must have interest in real estate law! Position will include the following...

Apply now

Associate Attorney


Small AV lawfirm in Baltimore County seeks an associate with a minimum of four years of experience i...

Apply now

Trusts & Estates Paralegal


Donahue Fitzgerald, a mid-sized full-service law firm, is seeking an experienced Paralegal...

Apply now


To Top