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 AllNYC's Administrative Court's to Publish Some Rulings in the New York Law Journal Is Welcomed. But It Should Go Further
4 minute readSidley Austin Scores Landmark Civil Rights Verdict Against Prolonged Solitary Confinement in State Prisons
Cuomo Spokesman Sues Wigdor, Alleging Their Lawsuit on Behalf of Trooper Was 'Legally Baseless'
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5Monsanto Moves to Pause PCB Trial That Starts This Week
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
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