I’m close to a free speech absolutist, but I think protesting outside a judge’s home, to influence a verdict, should generally be illegal. However, I would make an exception for the Supreme Court because of its political side.
I certainly would, as they have declared it legal to protest outside the homes of people who work in reproductive clinics.
I once had a Greek client who explained to me that if the laws are no longer rational, it’s fair game when it comes to protesting. I kind of liked that attitude .
It really is a law that, on the face of it, seems to violate the 1st amendment. I wonder if anyone ends up being charged with it, how the courts will end up ruling.
Not really. Read the decision 
Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., 512 U.S. 753 (1994).
8. The 300 foot buffer zone around staff residences sweeps more broadly than is necessary to protect the tranquility and privacy of the home. The record does not contain sufficient justification for so broad a ban on picketing; it appears that a limitation on the time, duration of picketing, and number of pickets outside a smaller zone could have accomplished the desired results. As to the use of sound amplification equipment within the zone, however, the government may demand that petitioners turn down the volume if the protests overwhelm the neighborhood. Pp. 19-20.
and here:
So, since Whack-a-Mole’s cite does not say quite what he thought it said, I would like a solid cite that said SCOTUS said protesting outside of abortion clinic employees’ homes was okay.
What you have cited is the Supreme Court of Florida’s decision. Not SCOTUS.
The decision was overturned, in part, by SCOTUS, specifically the part about protesting outside residences.
Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc. - Wikipedia.
Which is why, when someone says that SCOTUS allows protest outside of the residences of reproductive clinic staff, it is because they did.
Is that cite good enough for you?
ETA: Actually, I’m a bit confused, as, at first, I thought you were just citing the SCOF’s decision, but then you went and quoted SCOTUS’s overturn of that decision, contradicting what you were just saying, as what you quoted specifically allows protest outside of clinic staff residences.
IOW, your cite doesn’t say quote what you thought it said.
Anyway, I’ve read the decision, was there some comment or context that you wanted to put into it? As it stands, it pretty much confirms what has been said very clearly.
I’ve not read your cited article, as it is paywalled, is there a quote that is relevant to your point?
(And that last line of my previous post should read:
“IOW, your cite doesn’t say quite what you thought it said.”)
Never mind.
That was they cite that was given by Whack-a-Mole.
However, that wiki, again does not say it is okay to protest outside the abortion clinic workers home, it just said that three hundred foot buffer zone around residences. The Court found that these provisions " [swept] more broadly than necessary" to protect the state’s interests. " In other words, The record before the Supreme Court does not contain sufficient justification for this broad ban on picketing, it appears that a limitation, on the time, duration of picketing, and number of pickets outside a smaller zone could have accomplished the desired result, while placing a lesser restriction on the Petitioners’ First Amendment constitutional rights.
Five years later the justices upheld a Wisconsin town’s ordinance against picketing that targeted a home — in that case, the home of an abortion doctor.
It’s not just the wiki, it’s what you quoted as well. The law stating that you couldn’t protest outside a clinic staff’s home was overruled by SCOTUS. That’s what those words say, and what they mean.
I’m not sure what leg you are thinking you have to stand on here.
A little context would be useful, out of context quotes from some article don’t really help.
Five years later, from what? Searching out your quote, I see articles from 1988 about a similar subject, which would make that decision predate this decision, so not exactly relevant, and certainly makes the out of context “five years later” imply things it shouldn’t.
Unless it’s a different case, which is hard to track down given the lack of detail given in your contextless sentence that you think makes a point, in which case, how about some context?
No, the law saying a " three hundred foot buffer zone around residences. was too broad.
The context was the article.
Here is the whole paragraph: In 1965 the Supreme Court upheld Louisiana’s ban on picketing near courthouses. In 1983, however, the court largely overturned a federal law against demonstrations on sidewalks outside the court’s headquarters. Five years later the justices upheld a Wisconsin town’s ordinance against picketing that targeted a home — in that case, the home of an abortion doctor. But in 2014 the court unanimously struck down a Massachusetts “buffer zone” law requiring abortion protesters to stay more than 35 feet away from patients outside a clinic.
The balance has played out somewhat differently in California, where courts have upheld local restrictions on residential picketing. The leading case is a 1995 appellate ruling rejecting a challenge by abortion opponents to a San Jose ordinance prohibiting demonstrations within 300 feet of a home targeted by the protests.
Los Gatos passed a similar ordinance last October after antigay groups held a loud protest outside the mayor’s house. Other cities in California have enacted such measures, including Los Angeles, where City Council members’ homes were targeted by protests against the city’s COVID-19 vaccine requirement for entering restaurants and other indoor facilities, a mandate that was lifted in March. San Francisco and Oakland have not restricted residential demonstrations.
So, to say that SCOTUS has ruled unambiguously that all laws restricting protests outside residences are struck down, so it is okay to do so, is incorrect.
Protests in Neighborhoods - The Free Speech Center
Court has upheld residential picketing bans
In Frisby v. Schultz (1988), the Supreme Court narrowly upheld a residential picketing ban enacted by the town of Brookfield, Wisconsin. Finding a substantial governmental interest in protecting residential privacy, the Court majority explained: “One important aspect of residential privacy is protection of the unwilling listener. Although in many locations, we expect individuals simply to avoid speech they do not want to hear, the home is different.”
Then here
They can be banned, so long as the ban is content-neutral, and so long as people remain free to generally march through the neighborhood (as opposed to protesting right outside the target’s home)…We’ve heard a good deal in recent years about demonstrations outside people’s homes. Is this sort of targeted residential picketing protected by the First Amendment?
The short answer: No, but any restrictions on such picketing have to be imposed through content-neutral statutes or ordinances (or, in some situations, injunctions); and they have to leave people free to demonstrate in the same neighborhood:… 1. In Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc. (1994), the Court struck down an injunction that barred residential picketing within 300 feet of clinic employees’ homes, because it was too broad.
So read that last- not that the Court said it was okay to protest outside a residence but it struck down that one injunction because it was too broad.
Generally, then, laws prohibiting protests outside residences are okay- unless they are too broad.
Do any of these residential picketing laws, or court decisions, take into account attempts at intimidation? We’ve seen stories from time to time about protesters outside people’s homes carrying guns (or torches?) – this has come up with protests against school board members too, I believe.
Any such law or ruling would need to deal with defining “intimidation”, but if they can do that, I don’t think it’s a First Amendment issue.
It seems they are keen to find the person who leaked the decision:
Full title - Exclusive: Supreme Court leak investigation heats up as clerks are asked for phone records in unprecedented move
Absent a crime having been committed, is there a legal basis under which they can compel compliance with such demands?
The law clerks are in very, very prestigious positions that top law students from around the country compete to obtain. A Supreme Court clerkship all but makes your legal career, they are incredibly hard to come by. As far as I know, each Justice is allowed to hire whomever they want as clerks, and is likewise allowed to dismiss them summarily–they aren’t part of the civil service, they have no job protections as far as I know. They can’t be compelled to turn over their phones to an employer, or to the government without a warrant. But they could lose their clerkships if they refuse, which will undo much of the work in their life up to that point in a highly competitive profession.
The article mentions they want the clerks to sign affidavits. That will make those clerks become legally on the hook.
Note that they are not after the phone records of the justices or their spouses or making them sign affidavits.
Isn’t this a pretty blatant Fourth Amendment violation? Seems ironic coming from the Supreme Court itself.
I’d guess no as long as it’s just a condition of working for a SCOTUS judge.
If there is some kind of thorny legal issue I have no earthly idea how anyone would be able to litigate it.
Article said clerks are lawyering up, probably just to make sure there isn’t anything insane in the agreements they’re signing, but it’s not completely out of the realm of possibility that there’s legal way out for them.
It’s a condition of employment that clerks keep matters confidential. Should their employer not be able to investigate a breach of confidentiality?.
If the Marshal of the Supreme Court (this is the police chief of the tiny police department that technically reports to the Chief Justice, that was constituted for security of the justices and the immediate grounds of the Supreme Court building), is ordering these clerks to turn evidence over using his police power–that is simply not constitutional without a warrant, even if John Roberts or one of the other justices ordered it. They don’t have the power to issue “ex cathedra” executive orders to police officers. An investigation into this leak would not be part of the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction”, and unless it was an appellate case they would have no jurisdictional involvement in it from that angle either.
Essentially if any kind of purported government legal power is being used to compel production of evidence without a warrant, that’s almost certainly not legal and can simply be refused–and these are top law school students, they know this.
But yeah, if they are saying “do this or your clerkship ends in disgrace”, that’s a different story for them.