����ֱ��

When the Commonwealth of Massachusetts tried Karen Read on charges of murdering Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, the judge granted a government motion for a demonstration-free “buffer zone” extending 200 feet around Norfolk Superior Courthouse—including nearby public sidewalks—and Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court let it stand. When a mistrial presented the chance to reissue the buffer zone order on retrial, and the judge did so, protestors impacted by it took their case to federal court. And when they appealed denial of their preliminary injunction motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, ����ֱ�� joined the amici curiae brief of the First Amendment Lawyers Association (FALA) and National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) in support of the protestors.

The brief urges the First Circuit to reverse given that the challenged order categorically restricts peaceful expression on public sidewalks beyond courthouse grounds—classic "traditional public forums." Those “sidewalks and public ways,” the Supreme Court of the United States has emphasized, “occupy a special position in terms of First Amendment protection because of their historic role as sites for discussion and debate."

The 200-foot ban is a classic prior restraint on speech that triggers—and fails—strict scrutiny. As the Supreme Court has long recognized: “Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Here, the state court imposed sweeping restrictions without the individualized findings, narrow tailoring, or procedural safeguards the Constitution demands. 

There were also less restrictive alternatives the court could have used. They include enforcing existing noise ordinances, limiting speech restrictions to the immediate vicinity of courthouse entrances, providing courthouse security to manage access, and/or instructing jurors to disregard outside commentary—all without categorically banning protected speech on public sidewalks.

The vague prohibition against “demonstrating in any manner” leaves citizens at the mercy of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, chilling not just protesters but also journalists and bystanders. As the amicus brief explains, “the First Amendment does not permit judges to silence criticism by unilaterally redefining the boundaries of the public forum.”