'Occupy the Courts' Protesters Sue Over Permit Denial

The following information is used for educational purposes only.

'Occupy the Courts' Protesters Sue Over Permit Denial


Mark Hamblett

New York Law Journal

01-20-2012



Protesters have filed suit seeking the right to gather in front of the federal courthouse at 500 Pearl St. to urge the reversal of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), which prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions.

Claiming that the General Services Administration violated their First Amendment rights by denying a permit for the gathering planned for Jan. 20 late in the afternoon, the group "Occupy the Courts" is asking a federal judge to direct the GSA to allow the protest. A hearing has been set for 1:30 p.m. before Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.

Organizer Jarred Wolfman and Occupy the Courts allege in Wolfman v. French, 12 Civ. 0443, that they contacted GSA manager Wesley French on Dec. 15 about the permit process for a demonstration on the Pearl Street side of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse between 5 p.m. and 5:45 p.m., and submitted an application on Dec. 29.

The group said in a press release that it plans to gather at Zuccotti Park at 4 p.m. on Jan. 20 and march about 12 blocks to the courthouse for the rally, ending the event at Foley Square.

Mr. French told the group on Jan. 13 that its application was denied because of two events requiring "increased security to both the building and grounds"—the morning swearing in of new U.S. citizens and the afternoon swearing in of Southern District Judge Alison Nathan at 4 p.m.

Mr. Wolfman and Occupy the Courts, represented by Gideon Orion Oliver, claimed that they appealed to the GSA on the grounds that the denial was beyond the scope of conduct regulated by the GSA under 41 C.F.R. §102-74.500(c), that it was unreasonable, and, according to the complaint, "exceeds the government's authority to regulate speech and related expressive activity in a traditional public forum, and that even assuming, arguendo, that the denial is content neutral, it lacks narrow tailoring and fails to provide ample alternatives."

The protestors say the event is part of a self-styled "one day occupation of space and mass exercise of First Amendment rights near over 120 Federal courthouses in at least 46 states across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court." The complaint states that it will involve some 200 people or "non-corporate persons" who will hold "a small rally with speakers and maybe some singing" to mark the two-year anniversary of the Citizens United decision.

The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the permit denial was unconstitutional, a preliminary injunction, compensatory and punitive damages, costs and attorney fees.

Mr. Oliver, who represents the protestors, is president of the New York City chapter of the National Lawyers Guild.

Source: New York Law Journal