Harold Hodge v. Pamela Talkin
419 U.S. App. D.C. 111
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- 40 U.S.C. § 6135 (enacted 1949) prohibits parades/assemblages and the display of flags/banners/devices on the Supreme Court building and grounds, defined to include the plaza and surrounding perimeter sidewalks.
- In United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, the Supreme Court held the Display Clause unconstitutional as applied to the perimeter public sidewalks, treating those sidewalks as a traditional public forum, but left the plaza unaddressed.
- Harold Hodge was arrested in the Supreme Court plaza for wearing a political sign; he sued seeking to invalidate § 6135 as applied to the plaza, claiming First Amendment overbreadth and vagueness violations.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Hodge, declaring § 6135 unconstitutional as applied to the plaza; the government appealed.
- The D.C. Circuit (Srinivasan, J.) reversed: it found the plaza is a nonpublic forum distinct from the perimeter sidewalks, and upheld both Assemblages and Display Clauses as reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions.
- The court emphasized alternative channels (the adjacent public sidewalk), the government interests in preserving courtroom decorum and public confidence in judicial integrity (reinforced by Williams‑Yulee), and rejected Hodge’s overbreadth and vagueness challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forum classification: Is the Supreme Court plaza a public forum? | Hodge: plaza is open to the public and should be treated as a public forum (like sidewalks). | Gov: plaza is architecturally integrated with the Court, functioning as a courthouse forecourt, so it is a nonpublic forum. | Plaza is a nonpublic forum (distinct from perimeter sidewalks). |
| Validity of § 6135 restrictions in plaza: Do the Assemblages and Display Clauses violate the First Amendment? | Hodge: clauses unreasonably restrict core First Amendment activities (picketing, leafleting, speechmaking) in the plaza. | Gov: clauses are viewpoint-neutral and reasonably related to preserving decorum and the appearance/actuality of judicial independence. | Clauses are reasonable in a nonpublic forum and therefore constitutional as applied to the plaza. |
| Overbreadth: Does § 6135 sweep too broadly in the plaza? | Hodge: statute would criminalize innocuous gatherings and passive expressions, chilling protected speech. | Gov: restrictions are properly read to target expressive assemblages/displays; hypothetical marginal applications do not invalidate the statute. | Overbreadth claim fails; it is duplicative of the reasonableness analysis and the statute survives. |
| Vagueness: Is § 6135 unconstitutionally vague? | Hodge: terms like "assemblages," "device," and "bring into public notice" lack fair notice and invite arbitrary enforcement. | Gov: statute gives ordinary persons adequate notice; Grace construed similar language broadly; Hodge’s own conduct was clearly proscribed. | Vagueness claim fails; statute gives fair notice and does not permit arbitrary enforcement as applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (Sup. Ct.) (held Display Clause unconstitutional as applied to perimeter sidewalks; established forum analysis for Court grounds)
- Williams‑Yulee v. Florida Bar, 135 S. Ct. 1656 (Sup. Ct.) (reaffirmed compelling interest in preserving public confidence in judicial integrity)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Sup. Ct.) (standing and injury-in-fact principles)
- Lederman v. United States, 291 F.3d 36 (D.C. Cir.) (standing to challenge no-demonstration zones on Capitol grounds)
- Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (Sup. Ct.) (upheld restrictions on picketing "in or near" courthouses to protect judicial process)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (Sup. Ct.) (nonpublic forum standard: restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (Sup. Ct.) (due process vagueness doctrine; fair‑notice principle)
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (plaintiff who clearly falls within a statute's scope cannot successfully raise vagueness claim)
- Oberwetter v. Hilliard, 639 F.3d 545 (D.C. Cir.) (forum analysis for open‑air memorials; nonpublic forum reasoning)
- Jeannette Rankin Brigade v. Chief of Capitol Police, 342 F. Supp. 575 (D.D.C.) (three-judge court invalidating similar Capitol statute; background on forum distinctions)