i, a reasonable person, thought that protesting outside of the homes of elected officials was considered intimidation and obstruct their duties. the SCOTUS disagreed. and i oooooooop

US code title 18 part 1 chapter 73

“ Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”


The weeks of protests during the month of May were a federal crime for everybody involved.


Protesting the legislature is completely different. This law refers strictly to judges, and for good reason. That being said, I don’t believe anybody has the right to protest outside a residence, but that isn’t for me to decide.

This post was edited by YeeHaw on Jul 12 2022 06:54am

good luck getting convictions for people protesting a not yet rendered decision based on the leak that was unverified. after the decision was rendered, up until now, it is no crime, as the matter is settled.

also i'd take issue legally with the specific text of "administration of justice". this is a legal code to be applied directly to criminal or civil court cases while they're in trial, not SCOTUS cases before they've even been announced.

i dont support the protesting, its just the legally this is far from cut and dry. in this instance imo the SCOTUS congressional ruling has more relevance than that legal code.