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.





Senior M&A Attorney


Our corporate boutique law firm is seeking a senior level M&A attorney with a book of business that ...

Apply now

Paralegal / Legal Assistant


O\'Brien & Wolf, L.L.P., a general practice law firm in Rochester, Minnesota, is seeking a Family La...

Apply now

ADA Compliance Officer

USA-CA-Los Angeles

The Personnel Commission of the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) is currently recruiti...

Apply now

Attorney, Immigration Law (PERM/I-140)

USA-CA-Agoura Hills

Immigration Law Attorney (PERM & I-140) with 5+ years’ experience. We are looking for a ded...

Apply now




Search Now

Litigation Associate Attorney

USA-FL-Saint Petersburg

Saint Petersburg office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks litigation associate atto...

Apply Now

Litigation Associate Attorney

USA-NV-Las Vegas

Las Vegas office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks litigation associate attorney wi...

Apply Now

Immigration Attorney

USA-CA-Los Angeles

Los Angeles office of our client seeks immigration attorney 3-5 years of experience. The candidate w...

Apply Now

Most Popular


To Top