S.399 - Protecting Our Supreme Court Justices Act of 2025 (119th Congress)
Summary
S.399, the "Protecting Our Supreme Court Justices Act of 2025," aims to amend Section 1507 of Title 18, United States Code. The amendment seeks to increase the penalty for obstruction of justice related to picketing or parading near court buildings or the residences of judges, jurors, witnesses, or other court officers. The bill increases the maximum penalty from one year to five years.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this bill, if enacted, would be to increase the potential prison sentence for individuals convicted of picketing or parading with the intent to obstruct justice near locations associated with judicial proceedings. This could deter such activities. It may also lead to increased legal challenges based on First Amendment grounds.
Potential Benefits
- Increased protection for judges, jurors, and other court officials from intimidation.
- Potential deterrent effect on those who might attempt to influence judicial proceedings through picketing or parading.
- Reinforcement of the independence of the judiciary.
- Enhanced public safety around court buildings and residences of court officials.
- Could lead to a more orderly and respectful environment for the administration of justice.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential infringement on First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly.
- Risk of disproportionate punishment for relatively minor offenses.
- Could be perceived as an attempt to stifle dissent or criticism of the judiciary.
- May lead to increased tensions between law enforcement and protesters.
- Potential for selective enforcement based on political viewpoints.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment is complex. While it aims to protect the judicial process, it also potentially infringes upon the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly. The Supreme Court has recognized the importance of protecting court proceedings from undue influence, but also has a history of protecting expressive activities. The key question is whether the restrictions imposed by the bill are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, as required by First Amendment jurisprudence.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).