SDNY Judge Strikes Down State Law Banning Picketing Outside Courthouses
U.S. District Judge Denise Cote found a compelling state interest in protecting court proceedings but said the government had "not shown that the state must criminalize speech in this way to protect the integrity of ongoing trials."
July 30, 2020 at 05:57 PM
4 minute read
A Manhattan federal judge has struck down a rarely invoked New York state law that prohibited picketing outside courthouses, finding that the decades-old statute violated First Amendment rights to free speech.
U.S. District Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York ruled Wednesday that the 1952 law, which bans shouting and signage within 200 feet of a courthouse, was "facially unconstitutional" because it was a "content-based restriction on speech in a public forum that fails strict scrutiny."
The ruling came in the case of Michael Picard, who was arrested in 2017 while advocating for jury nullification outside the Bronx County Hall of Justice. The charges against Picard were later dropped, in part because the arresting officer had not measured out the distance between Picard and the building.
Picard, however, filed suit against Bronx County District Attorney Darcel Clark and the chief of safety for the New York Unified Court System, saying that he had not demonstrated since his arrest for fear of prosecution under the statute, which dated back to gatherings protesting the prosecution of Communist Party leaders outside a New York federal courthouse in 1949.
Government lawyers argued that the statute was narrowly tailored to prevent the disruption and undue influence of trials, and that it complemented other state laws against jury tampering and the obstruction of governmental administration. Only four people, they said, had been arrested in the last 14 years.
While Cote found a compelling state interest in protecting court proceedings, she said the government had "not shown that the state must criminalize speech in this way to protect the integrity of ongoing trials," and there were other ways to enforce order and maintain access to public buildings.
According to Cote, lawyers for the state officials were not able to offer a more narrow reading of the law, and she declined to "rewrite" the statute to conform with the constitutional requirements.
"To the extent that speakers are obstructing passage on the sidewalks or engaging with others in demonstrations, there are content-neutral regulations to maintain public order and access to a public building. And, of course, there are laws that make it a crime to tamper intentionally with jurors and witnesses," Cote wrote in an 18-page opinion.
"And, while it may pose a not inconsiderable burden on the court system, if jurors or witnesses must be escorted to and from the courthouse to encourage or protect their service on a particular trial, that can be done as well," she said.
Brian Hauss, who represented Picard, said in a statement that he was "glad the court struck down this blatantly unconstitutional law."
"People have a First Amendment right to speak out about the criminal justice system in the public square. The government cannot criminalize protest on public streets and sidewalks," said Hauss, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.
The New York City Law Department and the New York Attorney General's Office did not immediately provide comment on the ruling.
The case was captioned Picard v. Magliano.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
- 2Special Section: Products Liability, Mass Torts & Class Action/Personal Injury
- 3The Elliott Management vs. Southwest Airlines Faceoff: Who Won and What Determined the Outcome?
- 4November Court of Appeals Roundup
- 5Trellis Launches Trellis AI, a New Suite of Automated Litigation Tools
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250