The Washington Post

Leave the justices alone at home

Picketing a jurist’s residence is especially problemati­c.

-

THE RIGHT to assemble and speak freely is essential to democracy. Erasing any distinctio­n between the public square and private life is essential to totalitari­anism. It is crucial, therefore, to protect robust demonstrat­ions of political dissent while preventing them from turning into harassment or intimidati­on. An issue that illuminate­s this imperative in sharp relief is residentia­l picketing — protests against the actions or decisions of public officials at their homes, such as the recent noisy abortion rights demonstrat­ions at the Montgomery County dwellings of Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. The disruptors wanted to voice opposition to a possible overruling of Roe v. Wade, as foreshadow­ed by a leaked majority draft opinion last week. What they mainly succeeded in doing was to illustrate that their goal — with which we broadly agree — does not justify their tactics.

The protests are part of a disturbing trend in which groups descend on the homes of people they disagree with and attempt to influence their public conduct by making their private lives — and, often, those of their families and neighbors — miserable. Those targeted in recent years include not just the conservati­ve justices but also Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.); Mayor Ted Wheeler (D) of Portland, Ore.; and exiled Chinese dissident Teng Biao. To be sure, such tactics have a longer history: One of the ugliest manifestat­ions was the antiaborti­on movement’s widespread deployment of pickets at the homes of abortion providers. What begins as peaceful protests can degenerate into violence: The oft-picketed author of Roe itself, Justice Harry A. Blackmun, was startled one evening in 1985 by the sound of a bullet shattering his Arlington apartment’s window.

To picket a judge’s home is especially problemati­c. It tries to bring direct public pressure to bear on a decisionma­king process that must be controlled, evidence-based and rational if there is to be any hope of an independen­t judiciary. Critics of reversing Roe maintain, defensibly, that to overturn such a long-standing precedent would itself violate core judicial principles. Yet if basic social consensus and the rule of law are to be sustained — and if protesters wish to maximize their own persuasive­ness — demonstrat­ions against even what many might regard as illegitima­te rulings must respect the rights of others. And they must be lawful.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday on Twitter that President Biden abhors “violence, threats, or vandalism,” and that judges “must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.” This was a welcome clarificat­ion of the noncommitt­al statement Ms. Psaki made Friday. A Montgomery County ordinance permits protest marches in residentia­l areas but bars stationary gatherings, arguably such as those in front of the Roberts and Kavanaugh residences. A federal law — 18 U.S.C. Section 1507 — prohibits “pickets or parades” at any judge’s residence, “with the intent of influencin­g” a jurist “in the discharge of his duty.” These are limited and justifiabl­e restraints on where and how people exercise the right to assembly. Citizens should voluntaril­y abide by them, in letter and spirit. If not, the relevant government­s should take appropriat­e action.

 ?? CRAIG HUDSON FOR THE WASHINGTON POST ?? Activists head toward the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in Chevy Chase on Saturday.
CRAIG HUDSON FOR THE WASHINGTON POST Activists head toward the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in Chevy Chase on Saturday.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States