D.C. Circuit Says Capitol Police Cannot Favor Congressional-Backed Demonstrators on Eastern Steps
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the rule allowing only members of Congress to sponsor protests on the Capitol’s Eastern Steps violates the First Amendment.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the Capitol Police rule that bars ordinary citizens from demonstrating on the Eastern Steps unless a member of Congress sponsors the event. The case, Mahoney v. U.S. Capitol Police Board, arose when a minister sought to pray and protest on the steps and challenged the regulation as a First Amendment violation. The panel, composed of Judges Rao, Henderson, and Rogers, agreed the rule was impermissible, but only Rao and Henderson authored the majority opinion, emphasizing that the government cannot grant exclusive speaking rights to congressional-backed speakers.
The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment for the plaintiff but vacated the broad injunction, directing the district court to tailor any remedy. Senior Judge Rogers dissented, contending the steps constitute a traditional public forum and that the regulation fails the narrow-tailoring test. The decision effectively prevents the Capitol Police from enforcing the sponsorship requirement in future cases.
Why it matters
The ruling expands free-speech rights on Capitol grounds, limiting government control over who may protest there.
How the sides frame it
HIGH AGREEMENTBoth centrist and right-leaning coverage describe the D.C. Circuit ruling as striking down the Capitol Police rule that limited demonstrations to congressional-sponsored events, emphasizing its First Amendment implications.
CENTER
Centrist coverage frames the decision as a protection of free-speech rights, highlighting that the rule was unconstitutional because it barred less popular issues and failed to remain neutral in a nonpublic forum.
RIGHT
Right-leaning coverage frames the ruling as a rejection of government favoritism toward congressional-backed speakers, stressing that the rule improperly granted exclusive speaking rights to members of Congress.
The right emphasises
- the government cannot grant exclusive speaking rights to congressional-backed speakers
- the rule barred ordinary citizens from demonstrating
- the court emphasized neutrality and equal access to the Eastern Steps
In this story
