Two congressional Republicans demanded answers from the Department of Justice (DOJ) over its failures to arrest protesters outside the homes of Supreme Court justices.
An unprecedented breach of Supreme Court secrecy in June 2022 revealed that the high court was poised to overturn the constitutionally protected right to an abortion. Following this breach, many mounted protests outside the homes of conservative justices.
Section 1507 of the U.S. Code prohibits the picketing of justices or other federal judges to change the outcome of a legal case. But when demonstrators showed up at the homes of conservative justices over the leaked draft version of the opinion, U.S. Marshals made few arrests in connection with the statute.
Now, Britt and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) are demanding answers.
Jordan, who chairs the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, addressed a letter to Ronald Davis, who leads the U.S. Marshal Service (USMS).
In the letter, he called Britt’s discoveries “particularly troubling given the long line of recent left-wing attempts to intimidate and influence the Court.”
Jordan noted past attempts by Democrats to radically restructure the Supreme Court, wanting to add more justices or otherwise be less powerful.
In March 2020, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) issued an ominous warning to Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh that they had “released the whirlwind,” and would “pay the price.”
“You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” Schumer warned.
Jordan said that the training materials provided to the U.S. Marshals “strongly suggest that the Biden Administration is continuing to weaponize federal law enforcement agencies for partisan purposes.”
In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, Britt wrote: “During the roughly two-month period between the leak of the draft opinion and the issuance of the Court’s final opinion in Dobbs, multiple Supreme Court Justices were subject to illegal and continuous protest activity at their personal residences.”
In one case, she noted, an abortion advocate was apprehended in a plot to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. That same person, later reports said, may have intended to kill up to three justices.
During an earlier appearance on March 1, Garland had claimed that Marshals had full authority to make Section 1507 arrests as they saw fit.
In response to Sen. Mike Lee’s (R-Utah) question on why arrests were not made in connection to the statute, Garland replied: “the Marshals have been advised and they know—the Marshals on the ground—they have full authority to arrest people under any federal statute, including that federal statute [Section 1507].”
In a response to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Garland confirmed that no arrests had been made in connection to Section 1507, but again insisted this was not his decision.
“The Attorney General does not decide whether to arrest ... the Marshals on scene ... they do make the decision of whether to make an arrest,” he said.
Garland Lied Under Oath: Britt
Britt suggested that Garland had lied under oath in light of the discovery of the training materials and newly-discovered post orders to U.S. Marshals.Britt reported the discovery of post orders to Marshals dated May 19, 2022, stating that “Although there may be state and federal laws concerning protest activity around residences, the USMS is not in a position to enforce those laws.”
Later orders dated June 4, 2022, state that USMS deputies should not engage protesters “unless they attempt to enter private property.”
Both Garland and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco have said in testimony to Congress that despite the existence of these materials, Marshals still had the authority to make Section 1507 arrests.
At an April 19 hearing, Monaco suggested that Garland’s March 1 testimony “was very clear and not in need of correction.”
Britt wrote: “In direct contradiction of your testimony that the Marshals on the ground were vested with full and independent authority to pursue arrests under Section 1507, the training materials instruct the [Marshal Service] deputies to coordinate any enforcement action in advance with the relevant U.S. Attorney’s Office and state that it would be ‘counter-productive’ to make arrests in cases that DOJ will not charge and prosecute.
“In light of all the clear evidence that DOJ actively sought to dissuade USMS personnel from enforcing Section 1507, the Deputy Attorney General’s April 19th testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee ... your continued failure to amend your March 1st testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee all raise a number of troubling questions regarding DOJ’s dishonesty and impropriety with respect to its handling of this matter,” she concluded.
Britt’s letter was cosigned by Sens. Cruz, Lee, and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).
In addition, Britt and Jordan requested an array of relevant documents, communications, memos, and other materials from the agency heads.
