A Lesson on the Meaning of “Harangue” and “Oration”

In U.S. v. Brownstein, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, reversing the District Court, held that a federal law regulating conduct in the Supreme Court Building, 40 U.S.C. § 6134, which prohibits “harangues and orations” during oral argument, is constitutionally infirm.  On April 1, 2015, the defendants interrupted oral argument to announce their displeasure for the District Court’s ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a political speech case.  Noting that the defendants had fair notice of the rules governing conduct in this area, the DC Circuit, citing the movie “My Cousin Vinny,” concluded that a” person of ordinary intelligence could read this law and understand that, as a member of the Supreme Court’s oral argument audience, making disruptive public speeches is clearly proscribed behavior.”

Section 6134, entitled “Firearms, fireworks, speeches, and objectionable language in the Supreme Court Building and grounds,” provides:

It is unlawful to discharge a firearm, firework or explosive, set fire to a combustible, make a harangue or oration, or utter loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building or grounds.

The District Court concluded that ‘harangues’ and ‘orations’ ‘cannot be determined without reference to subjective perceptions and individual sensitivities,'” and struck them as unconstitutionally vague. The DC Circuit disagreed:

Employing the tools of statutory interpretation, we hold 40 U.S.C. § 6134 gives a core meaning to both ‘harangue’ and ‘oration.’ This core meaning is delivering speeches of various kinds to persons within the Supreme Court’s building and grounds, in a manner that threatens to disturb the operations and decorum of the Court. In the context of the Supreme Court’s building and grounds, the terms’ core meaning proscribes determinable conduct. Thus, the district court erred in striking the terms as void for vagueness.

The DC Circuit noted the “[t]he longstanding principles of statutory interpretation hold that ‘a word is known by the company it keeps.'” It went onto note that “[t]he prohibitions surrounding ‘harangue’ and ‘oration’ demonstrate concern with disruptions of the Supreme Court’s order and decorum.” The prohibition of noises that tend to disrupt the Court’s operations “should illuminate the construction of ‘harangue’ and ‘oration.'” By keeping this concern in mind, the use of “harangue” and “oration” refers “to public speeches that tend to disrupt the Court’s operations, and no others.” Ultimately, the DC Circuit concluded that the District Court erred in striking these two terms as unconstitutionally vague and reversed and remanded the matter for further proceedings.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Pillsbury - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

more+
less-

Pillsbury - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×
Loading...
×
×