Hodge v. Talkin
949 F. Supp. 2d 152
D.D.C.2013Background
- Hodge was arrested on the Supreme Court plaza for wearing a sign and charged under 40 U.S.C. § 6135.
- Hodge filed a First and Fifth Amendment challenge to § 6135 on its face and as applied to his planned future protest activities.
- The statute bans parading, standing, or moving in assemblies and displays on the Supreme Court building/grounds.
- Supreme Court Police enforce § 6135 with warnings and arrest when violators do not comply; sidewalks around the Court are treated as a public forum where the Display Clause is unconstitutional as applied.
- The Court analyzes the statute’s history, the Plaza’s layout and use, and related case law to determine constitutionality.
- The Court ultimately concludes § 6135 is unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds and grants summary judgment for Hodge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 6135 is unconstitutional on its face. | Hodge argues the statute suppresses core First Amendment activity. | Defendants contend a nonpublic-forum analysis with limiting construction preserves validity. | Statute is unconstitutional on its face. |
| Whether the Supreme Court plaza is a nonpublic forum. | plaza should not be treated as nonpublic to justify broad restrictions. | Court argues plaza is nonpublic and thus subject to reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions. | Court assumes nonpublic forum for analysis but finds restrictions unreasonable. |
| Whether the Assemblages Clause and Display Clause are unconstitutionally overbroad. | Overbreadth invalidates the statute as applied and on its face. | Limitations protect court integrity; clause is narrowly tailored under some constructions. | Both clauses are unconstitutionally overbroad on their face. |
| Whether a limiting construction could save § 6135. | Limiting construction could cure overbreadth. | Pearson-style narrowing could fix the statute. | Judicially crafting a limiting construction is inappropriate; statute is invalid as written. |
| Whether the plaintiff has standing to challenge the Assemblages Clause. | Hodge intends to return and engage in group expressive activity. | Challenged in part as applied; standing limited. | Plaintiff has standing to challenge the statute as a whole. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grace v. Burger, 665 F.2d 1193 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (facially unconstitutional 40 U.S.C. § 13k; early Capitol Grounds analysis)
- Grace v. United States (Grace II), 461 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1983) (Display Clause unconstitutional as applied to sidewalks surrounding the Court)
- Jeannette Rankin Brigade II, 342 F.Supp. 575 (D.D.C. 1972) (struck down Capitol Grounds-like statute as unconstitutional)
- U.S. v. Wall, 521 A.2d 1140 (D.C. 1987) (Assemblages Clause reasonable if plaza is nonpublic forum or public forum with TP&M limits)
- Pearson v. United States, 581 A.2d 347 (D.C. 1990) (upheld limiting construction to protect Court while avoiding overbreadth)
- Potts v. United States, 919 A.2d 1127 (D.C. 2007) (Display Clause constitutional on plaza context; supports narrowing approach)