This case challenges a federal statute that prohibits demonstration activity on the Supreme Court grounds. The district court assumed that the plaza in front of the courthouse was a “nonpublic forum” (an area where the government has greater leeway in banning speech), but nevertheless held the ban on demonstration activity there to be unconstitutionally unreasonable. The government appealed.
We filed an amicus brief in the D.C. Circuit in January 2014, arguing that the plaza, and courthouse plazas generally, are not “nonpublic forums,” but rather traditional public forums, where demonstrations can be regulated as to time, place, and manner, but not banned. But in August 2015, the court held that the plaza is a nonpublic forum where the government can regulate speech as long as the regulations are reasonable and do not discriminate based on viewpoint. The blanket prohibition is, by definition, viewpoint-neutral, and the court found that the regulation reasonably served the purposes of “preserving decorum in the area of a courthouse and assuring the appearance (and actuality) of a judiciary uninfluenced by public opinion and pressure.” The plaintiffs sought review by the Supreme Court, which the Court denied in May 2016.
