Below is my column on Fox.com on the most recent controversial decision from Chief Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C. While accusing President Trump of a sweeping view of his power, the court seems to have an equally expansive view of its own power.
Here is the column:
Chief Judge James Boasberg is frustrated … and he is not alone. Recently, the D.C. federal judge reportedly “groused” that the D.C. appellate court had ordered him to reconsider a case about whether the D.C. government engaged in biased enforcement against political graffiti. Conversely, the litigants are equally irked over what they see as Boasberg’s bias after he responded by, again, dismissing their claims without a trial.
For a second time, Boasberg has barred pro-life groups from access to a jury after members were arrested for writing in chalk “Black Pre-Born Lives Matter” on a sidewalk while Black Lives Matter writings were left untouched.
I wrote earlier about the emerging body of “Boasberg’s Law,” cases in which the judge has increasingly shown an untethered and expansive view of his own authority. Recently, Boasberg was found to have committed an “abuse of discretion” in twice finding that the Trump Administration was in contempt of court for failing to turn around deportation flights.
My disagreements with Boasberg are not over the underlying issues, but rather the court’s rejection of basic limits on its own authority. While chastising President Trump for exceeding his authority, Boasberg has been reversed for exceeding his own.
In the earlier case, Boasberg dismissed grand jury subpoenas in the probe of Fed Chair Jerome Powell. I have been critical of that probe, but Boasberg’s refusal to allow the subpoenas to be executed was based on an opinion that was rife with open hostility for President Trump, dubious sources, and biased observations.
I have similar reservations in this latest case. During the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, streets in Washington were covered with BLM graffiti and the police watched as protesters wrote slogans and slurs on stores, streets, and sidewalks. The government itself even commissioned a massive painting of the message on a street near the White House.
However, when Frederick Douglass Foundation and Students for Life of America wrote their pro-life version of the slogan, they were immediately arrested and the chalk protest removed.
The D.C. Circuit’s reversal of Boasberg in the case was a major victory for free speech. Boasberg had applied the wrong standard to kill the case, holding that the group could not challenge the selective enforcement of the laws. In reaching that conclusion, Boasberg applied the wrong standard, imposing the heavy burden of proving that the city was engaged in “invidious enforcement.” While that standard was used correctly to dismiss an equal protection claim, it is not the standard for a free speech challenge.
The Court did not hide its dissatisfaction with the thrust of Boasberg’s opinion in dismissing the First Amendment claim:
“The First Amendment prohibits government discrimination on the basis of viewpoint. ‘To permit one side … to have a monopoly in expressing its views … is the antithesis of constitutional guarantees.’ The protection for freedom of speech applies not only to legislation, but also to enforcement of the laws.”
The appellate court sent the case back to Boasberg with the opportunity to apply the correct standard and to create a substantive record before issuing a ruling on the free speech claim.
Boasberg took the case and ruled again that the groups would not be allowed a trial. The new dismissal was issued despite the standard that, in seeking such a dismissal before a trial, the court must accept all material facts in favor of the nonmoving party or, in this case, the pro-life and pro-free speech litigants.
Boasberg rejected the factual claim that they were “similarly situated” to the BLM protesters. The litigants presented the results of discovery on the point, but Boasberg dismissed the claim on his own subjective view of the evidence.
They have now filed again with the appellate court to appeal his order.
Some of Boasberg’s factual findings are baffling. For example, he maintains that the groups did not show that MPD officers “even witnessed any specific defacement during [Black Lives Matter] protests.” However, the groups presented such evidence as bodycam video of officers watching as a protester spray-painted ‘I can’t breathe’ on the street near the White House two weeks after the arrests of the pro-life protesters. They submitted other video evidence of officers watching protesters spray-painting BLM messages outside of the Department of Justice.
Moreover, they presented what they claimed is guidance from Assistant Chief of Police Jeffery Carroll, in charge of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Special Operations Division, in the application of different treatment for graffiti.
Carroll reportedly admitted to being “present” at BLM protests featuring “defacement” of property, public and private and Lt. Jason Bagshaw admitted that he also saw defacement “related to” BLM protests.
This does not mean that a jury would rule for these litigants but rather that court cannot substitute its judgment for a jury when a credible and supported claim has been made by litigants.
Boasberg declares that no such credible evidence was presented. The fact is that a reasonable jury could conclude that there was a different treatment shown in the enforcement of these laws based on the content of the speech.
The biased enforcement of laws is a common reality in other countries where courts enable such selective enforcement. In countries such as Iran and China, no level of evidence is sufficient to overcome the bias of courts in showing a preference for one side.
Judge Boasberg has had a distinguished career that is now being undone by a lack of restraint in these decisions. Again, I believe that the judge has been on solid ground in some of these conflicts, including criticizing the use of “intemperate and disrespectful” language in filings and demanding compliance with his orders. However, while Chief Judge Boasberg has described the President’s claim of expansive powers as “awfully frightening,” the same can be said about a judge who substitutes his own judgment for juries and disregards legal standards for disfavored groups.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Picture a family at a crowded restaurant. One kid is throwing a full tantrum, screaming, crying, making a scene. The parents let it slide because stepping in might make it worse. Meanwhile the other kid, sitting there quietly, raises a hand to ask a simple question and gets told to be quiet. That’s what this logic amounts to.
Reward the chaos because it’s inconvenient to confront, and come down hardest on the one being orderly about it because that’s the safe target. Anyone who’s sat in that restaurant knows exactly how backwards that is. It’s no different here.
A hypothetical question Olly.
Was the restraunt a McDonald’s and were fries involved?
LOL! The analogy is completely and utterly wrong. Olly will write BS just to get attention.
Olly’s analogy is on point but is too soft. Handling BLM with kid gloves because they are violent is the same as prosecuting anti-islam speech(UK) because muslims are guaranteed to get violent if you insult their religion.
Exactly.
There are other restaurants.
In family systems psychology, such a dynamic would be recognized as narcissistic abuse of both children. The unequal treatment by the parents in such families ruins the relationship of the siblings, usually forever. That’s how serious this type of narcissistic abuse is. The government’s favoring of certain speech has led to many deaths and a lot of mob violence.
Thank you.
Kevin Hornbuckle,
“The government’s favoring of certain speech has led to many deaths and a lot of mob violence.”
All the more reason why this judge and people like him are a danger to the republic.
and will seriously affect both childs self-esteem and even sense of self.
Boasberg could be an agent of forces trying to destroy the United States.
Or, the more simple explanation, he is merely a symptom of the deep and growing divide in this nation, a divide that will produce increasing chaos and violence.
@oldfish
It is very likely the first, IMO. It’s just these folks are more akin to foot soldiers than directive creators. They follow those people’ orders, and it is far less cohesive than in a spy film. It gets more so all the time.
Talking points and actions of the modern left globally are no longer simply ideologically similar, but *identical*. There is no grass roots, or truly independent action, or even strictly personal bias. It’s a machine, by design.
Lately I’ve been seeing pieces about summer 2020 lock downs that frames it as a natural evolution, a personal choice to alter one’s life and ways (unless you were a dem or activist for same), not an egregious and calculated crime against humanity – they really do think we are stupid. This is the narrative now. The likes of Boasberg reveal nothing has changed – it’s only deepened.
The list of potential perps is long
Occam’s razor, indeed.
Sometimes the odds are split evenly and Mr Occam has to sit one out.
Judge Boasberg is obviously biased. The solution for a biased judge is to file a motion to recuse him. Surely, he will deny it, but then that can be either sent to the Chief Judge for review or appealed and the appellate court can remove him from the case. Then a new judge would be assigned.
“Boasberg’s Law:”
Boasberg’s “rejection of basic limits on [his] own authority.” Boasberg “ruled again that the groups would not be allowed a trial.”
Boasberg is auditioning for a position on the DSA’s People’s Court.
Let’s remember that this is one frame in a movie. The rest of the movie is our federal courts appellate procedure for correction of trial court error. The same Circuit Court that found error in Boasberg’s Rule 12(b)(6) ruling will, if the Rule 56 ruling is appealed, take fresh look at whether there are disputed issue of material fact to require trial. This movie can extend through 3 judge panel, rehearing en banc by the full court, petition for certiorari to SCOTUS, to grant, briefing, oral argument and decision. It’s a system of checks and balances within a system of checks and balances. It’s just not instant gratification.
@Mike
Agreed, and these rogue judges know it; it’s intended to be a spanner in the works so there is a timeframe more chicanery can be accomplished or pushed through in the meantime. It’s pretty much lawfare and delay and deploy by rote. They know precisely what they are doing, and they won’t cease unless they have to.
No offense to anyone, but these are people that could give a toss about fairness or law but as a cudgel, or something to be permanently altered or eradicated when they are in a position to do so. That will also not cease.
Self-correction can’t occur when one party literally wants to end the mechanisms for good.
“… and they won’t cease unless they have to.” It’s time to introduce a ‘three overrulings and lose your pension’ law. Same for prosecuters who hide exculpatory evidence. Enforcing that, as a start, will cut down on the lawfare.
Agreed but appeals are NOT the norm. Most cases are never appealed – but an enormous number of cases from a dozen or so left wing nut judges are all being appealed and all being reversed – that is a giant neon sign flashing unsuitability to be a judge.
All judges get a case wrong on occasion. Most get the message when they are overturned on appeal.
Sane judges strive hard not to be reversed.
Boasberg appears to be taking it as a badge of honor
Boasberg & dozen of other judges are working hand & hand with those who want to destroy our Republic. They are co-conspirators & part of the insurrection.
What will take for DoJ to start their prosecution?
This goes back further than case law. It’s in the Declaration itself. Among the specific charges against the king: he deprived the colonists of the benefits of Trial by Jury. He was accused of transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences, pulling cases away from the community that should have judged the facts. And he made judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries, meaning the men deciding your case answered to the same authority you were fighting, not to your own community.
Three separate grievances, and they all point at the same thing. A jury of your peers judging the facts is not a technicality. It’s one of the specific reasons this country exists. When a single judge sets aside a factual dispute and decides it himself, without a jury, and without the local accountability a jury represents, that’s not a new argument. It’s the oldest one we’ve got. The founders wrote it into the founding complaint against a king. We shouldn’t need reminding of why they thought it mattered enough to list.
#. Love that! Kings have absolute power, divine power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely in real time!
Thank you. Here’s a real one from the founding era. 1768, John Hancock’s ship the Liberty gets seized on smuggling charges. He doesn’t get a jury of his neighbors. He gets hauled into vice-admiralty court, no jury at all, one judge, appointed by the crown, deciding everything by himself. John Adams took the case and it dragged on for months. Officers of the crown interrogating half of Boston, even Hancock’s own aunt, trying to build something out of nothing. Charges finally got dropped, but they never gave him his ship back.
That’s not some abstract complaint in a history book. That’s the actual grievance the founders wrote into the Declaration. A man gets accused, and instead of facing a jury of his peers, he faces one official who answers to the same power bringing the charges. No community, no jury, just one man’s word deciding your fate.
We’re not talking swords and muskets here. Just a citizen wanting the same thing Hancock wanted. Twelve people looking at the facts instead of one man deciding alone.
OLLY,
Great comment.
It is disturbing how some people actually believe this kind of lawlessness is some how justifiable.
Upstate, for years this blog disturbed me too. What changed things for me wasn’t getting less disturbed. It was finally seeing why it keeps happening. This isn’t random decay. It’s formation drift, decades of it, and once you see the pattern you stop being surprised by each new headline and start seeing where it actually came from.
“Boasberg’s Law” is an oxymoron.
I don’t think that is an oxymoron, it’s more a false analogy through a conflicted description.
A Jumbo Shrimp is an example of an oxymoron. A tall midget or hairy bald man…all oxymorons.
An Esquire would know these things Georgie.
Ai says
As a phrase in English, calling “Boasberg’s Law” an oxymoron makes sense only if the term “law” is understood in its traditional, objective sense (a fixed, impartial rule), while “Boasberg’s Law” is used to describe subjective, unilateral judicial actions that appear to contradict those very principles.
An oxymoron joins two contradictory terms (e.g., “jumbo shrimp,” “deafening silence”). In this case:
“Law” implies consistency, neutrality, and adherence to established legal standards.
“Boasberg’s Law” refers to a pattern of rulings where a judge allegedly substitutes personal judgment for legal standards, acting in ways that seem arbitrary or untethered from traditional legal constraints.
Thus, the phrase works as an oxymoron rhetorically: it highlights the perceived contradiction between the ideal of “law” and the specific actions attributed to Judge Boasberg. It does not mean the phrase is nonsensical; rather, it uses contradiction to make a critical point about judicial overreach or bias.
nyah nyah
“AI” (artificial intelligence) is an oxymoron.
I’ll take “Nice Try” for $1000, Alex.
Boom, Daily Double!
and so is “Boasberg’s law”
No, it’s not
“While chastising President Trump for exceeding his authority, Boasberg has been reversed for exceeding his own.”
I need some help s@@tlibs in my attempt to engage in wokespeak.
It’s easy. Judge Boasburg is fighting to preserve “Our Democracy(tm)” and Trump is a “nazi”. And if you disagree with this assessment, you are a “nazi”!
How did I do s@@tlibs?
antonio
This “Judge” should have been removed from the bench after his clear and blatant violation of Judicial authority and Constitutional Rights violations while serving on the FISC. In failing to remove him, they have simply emboldened his Judicial Tyranny.
“This “Judge” should have been removed from the bench”
The Constitution does not provide any means for permanent “removal” of an Article III judge. Impeachment and conviction would require proof of “high crimes and misdemeanors” or outright treason, which is a bar that is unlikely to be cleared wrt Boasberg. However, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Pauline Newman has been effectively suspended from hearing cases for more than 3 years, for no verified reason. I do not see why the same remedy could not potentially be applied to Boasberg, since SCOTUS recently declined to hear Newman’s appeal, apparently setting precedent (I did not review any rationale they may have published for declining). Whether that action is politically feasible (like it or not, and I emphatically do not, disciplining Federal judges is much more a political than a legal process) I do not know.
What exactly did he violate? What law or rule? Nobody has shown that.
You don’t need a law degree to see the problem here. Two groups wrote messages on public property. Same basic act, similar circumstances, not identical but close enough that any average citizen looking at it would say wait a minute. One group got left alone. The other got arrested.
Whether the reason offered afterward is safety or crowd size or anything else isn’t really the point at ground level. The point is one side got to speak and the other got hauled in for saying something different. If that’s not what a free speech trial is for, nothing is.
That question, whether the law was applied evenly or applied based on the message, is exactly the kind of question a jury is supposed to answer. Instead a judge looked at it alone and made the call himself.
That’s the part that should bother people regardless of which side they’re on. The plain fact that a citizen with a real First Amendment claim didn’t get in front of a jury. An average person can see that gap without anybody’s help. That’s not a legal argument. That’s just fairness, and it shouldn’t take a law degree to demand it.
“ Two groups wrote messages on public property. Same basic act, similar circumstances, not identical but close enough that any average citizen looking at it would say wait a minute. One group got left alone. The other got arrested.”
No Olly, they were not similar circumstances. That’s the problem. It’s not the messages it’s the circumstances and the context in which they were enforced that is the issue.
The BLM messages were written during a chaotic riot environment. The pro-life messages were written where there was no violence, chaos, and danger of escalation if an enforcement action were taken.
That is what judge Boasberg was required to consider. The pro-life actions were not similar legally to the BLM circumstances.
Judge Boasberg is allowed to make summary judgment based on the actions taken in context of the situations of both instances. Since the police do have prosecutorial discretion based on safety between escalating the danger when dealing with a mob in a riot and protesters writing on the sidewalk absent any rioting and violence. The judge is required to weight those circumstances and determine if they were indeed similar. Factually and legally they were not.
The groups are not being punished because of what they wrote. Graffiti is still illegal in both circumstances. Writing messages on sidewalks or walls or storefronts is a crime. Carrying signs is not. The only issue before the judge is the circumstances at the time of the arrests. Neither were similar circumstances. Legally the judge can deny a jury trial base on that fact. It’s literally what the law requires of the judge to weight in order to decide whether the case can legally move forward.
ruling on that narrow issue is a pretext to avoid the larger issue; one which is deeply implicated and which needs a full trail
No, because the dispute is centered on the claim that the pro-life group was arrested because they wrote ‘political graffiti’ on the sidewalk is the same crime as the BLM graffiti. Both are crimes. The issue is the enforcement. Legally judge Boasberg has to consider the similarity of the circumstances in order to determine if the case can move forward to a jury trial. Because the circumstances were not legally similar he can issue a summary judgement based on the law.
X –
Does it ever hurt for you to do such illogical mental gymnastics? No self-respecting attorney would even think to argue that violence is a larger license to 1A liberties.
Sometimes you really should just sit one out. This is such a situation.
It’s not mental gymnastics. It’s literally what the law says is a requirement of determination. I posted the actual rules that specify how and why the judge was able to determine if he could or could not issue a summary judgment.
#. Did Boasberg point that out, X?
Boasberg acted on the law’s requirements. He didn’t need to point it out. Turley, the lawyer should have pointed it out. But because it would conflict with his intended misleading narrative he deliberately chose not to.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit already made that decision when it stated that a jury should decide if the city acted out of viewpoint discrimination, rather than pure safety concerns.
Judge Boasberg, after the D.C. Appeals made its decision, cannot dismiss this case on a “Summary Judgment” motion because the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the government cannot use the shield of “prosecutorial discretion” to selectively allow one political viewpoint to dominate public spaces while instantly arresting another. Because the city allowed widespread, peaceful, post-riot formatting of BLM messages to remain untouched, the court determined a jury should decide if the city acted out of viewpoint discrimination, rather than pure safety concerns.
Has BLM been designated as terrorist if it is as you say, X? Unmanageable by valid authority?
Huh? You’re clearly grasping at straws.
No, ruling on that narrow issue IS exactly what the law requires. The ‘larger’ issue requires a broader interpretation and that is not what is required of the judge at this junction in the case.
Oh I get it; if a group is violent enough they get 1A rights. A peacefully protesting group gets locked up. Thanks for explaining that.
Nope. It’s obvious you’re not grasping what the law and the rules require. That’s why there are law schools.
1. Alien Enemies Act Deportations (2025–2026)
Boasberg was reversed three times in this single controversy regarding the deportation of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador:
Supreme Court Reversal (March 2025): The Supreme Court vacated Boasberg’s Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that attempted to stop the flights and order planes to turn back. The high court ruled 5-4 that Boasberg lacked jurisdiction because the detainees were no longer in his district, effectively overruling his initial block on the deportations.
D.C. Circuit Reversal #1 (August 2025): After Boasberg found “probable cause” for criminal contempt against the administration for ignoring his TRO, the D.C. Circuit vacated this finding. The panel ruled his oral order to turn planes around was too vague to support criminal contempt charges.
D.C. Circuit Reversal #2 (April 2026): When Boasberg launched a renewed contempt probe focusing on the transfer of custody, the D.C. Circuit blocked him again, labeling the investigation a “clear abuse of discretion” and an improper intrusion into executive branch deliberations.
2. Pro-Life Chalk Graffiti Case (Frederick Douglass Foundation v. District of Columbia)
Boasberg has been reversed twice in this First Amendment lawsuit involving selective enforcement of graffiti laws:
First Reversal (~2023/2024): The D.C. Circuit vacated Boasberg’s initial dismissal of the case. The appellate court ruled he applied the wrong legal standard (“invidious discrimination” instead of “viewpoint discrimination”) and improperly denied the plaintiffs discovery.
Second Reversal (Pending/Expected 2026): After being remanded, Boasberg dismissed the case again on summary judgment, ruling the groups were not “similarly situated” to other vandals. The plaintiffs have appealed this second dismissal, with legal analysts and the D.C. Circuit previously signaling that substituting judicial judgment for a jury’s on these facts constitutes an abuse of discretion.
3. Dakota Access Pipeline (2020)
Boasberg was partially reversed regarding the environmental remediation of the pipeline:
The Ruling: In July 2020, he ordered the pipeline to be shut down and emptied of oil pending a new environmental impact statement.
The Reversal: In August 2020, the D.C. Circuit upheld the order for a new study but vacated the shutdown order, ruling that emptying the pipeline was too drastic a remedy without further analysis of the economic and energy consequences.
4. Grand Jury Subpoenas (Jerome Powell Probe, 2026)
Boasberg was reversed for interfering with a grand jury investigation:
The Ruling: He blocked the execution of grand jury subpoenas directed at Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, citing concerns over the probe’s motivation.
The Reversal: The D.C. Circuit overturned his block, ruling that a district judge cannot interfere with the grand jury’s independent investigative powers based on speculative concerns about political motivation.
5. FISA Surveillance Certifications (Historical Context)
While often upholding surveillance programs, Boasberg’s tenure on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has faced scrutiny:
Impeachment Articles (2025): Republican lawmakers introduced articles of impeachment alleging Boasberg “abused his discretion” during his FISC term by failing to disclose payments and mishandling surveillance certifications. While not a judicial reversal, this represents a formal legislative finding of “abuse of discretion” regarding his past rulings on NSA/FBI surveillance protocols.
I really had to push the AI to spit em all out
Boasberg sure doesn’t know much about the law! see any similarities in all these times he was spanked?
Common sense policing never gets old.
You appear to be wrong as a factual matter. The evidence presented showed that some of the BLM graffiti was drawn by small groups that were not violent who were observed by police officers. See the article linked at “groused”. That is why Turley thinks this should have gone to a jury — the facts were not sufficient to resolve it as a matter of law.
The existence of some non-violent subgroups does not legally negate or alter the overarching cause of action, statutory definitions, or the documented liability elements established by the primary evidence.
For a judge to send a case to a jury, the disputed facts must be “material,” meaning they have the potential to change the legal outcome of the lawsuit under the governing law.
Judges determine the boundaries of the law and whether a party has met the baseline legal threshold to sustain or defeat a claim.
If there are two small non-violent groups with different messages and one gets arrested for graffiti and the other doesn’t that should be enough to send it to a jury.
Daniel, that’s it exactly. Two small groups, similar circumstances, one arrested and one not. That’s not a settled question of law. That’s a fact in dispute, and disputed facts go to a jury.
And if X’s answer is that police held off on the BLM group out of fear it could turn violent, that actually proves the point rather than settling it. If fear of violence is what excuses non-enforcement, then the loudest, most disruptive message gets a pass, and the quiet, orderly one gets the citation. That’s not a safety standard. That’s rewarding whoever makes the bigger scene. Whether that’s really what happened here, or whether the message itself is what mattered, is exactly the kind of question a jury should be sorting out. Not something a judge decides in advance from the bench.
Daniel and OLLY,
And that describes the tyranny of the mob and the demise of law and order.
Rebuttal anyone?
Wrong again. Your argument hinges entirely on the claim that Black Lives Matter (BLM) messages were only overlooked during active, chaotic riots. Legal documentation and the plaintiffs’ evidence showed that the D.C. government permitted, and in some cases ordered city workers to help paint, massive street murals (“Black Lives Matter”). These murals were left intact for weeks during periods of complete
You claim Judge Boasberg was required to find them dissimilar. In reality, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed Judge Boasberg’s initial dismissal. The appeals court stated that the pro-life groups and BLM protesters were “similarly situated” enough to advance the lawsuit. Both groups were using public property to share political messages, and both technically violated the defacement ordinance.
Your argument simply states standard law enforcement operational choices, but in doing so, it fails as a complete legal conclusion for this specific case. Your argument hinges entirely on the claim that Black Lives Matter messages were only overlooked during active, chaotic riots. Legal documentation and the plaintiffs’ evidence showed that the D.C. government permitted, and in some cases ordered city workers to help paint, massive street murals “Black Lives Matter.” These murals were left intact for weeks during periods of complete calm.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the government cannot use the shield of “prosecutorial discretion” to selectively allow one political viewpoint to dominate public spaces while instantly arresting another. Because the city allowed widespread, peaceful, post-riot formatting of BLM messages to remain untouched, the court determined a jury should decide if the city acted out of viewpoint discrimination, rather than pure safety concerns.
“ The plain fact that a citizen with a real First Amendment claim didn’t get in front of a jury. An average person can see that gap without anybody’s help. That’s not a legal argument. That’s just fairness, and it shouldn’t take a law degree to demand it.”
But it apparently takes a law degree to see and rationalize how it doesn’t.
It’s not a first amendment claim. It’s an enforcement claim.
OLLY,
Another great comment.
Judge Boasberg should be a model case taught at law schools about judicial hypocrisy and then compare it to your previous comments about what lead us to the Declaration of Independence and the Revolution.
Appreciate that, Upstate. Wouldn’t be a bad case study either way, hypocrisy on one side, a formation question underneath it on the other. The founders didn’t just object to specific rulings. They objected to a system where the person deciding your case answered to the same power that was accusing you. That question didn’t disappear with independence. It just changes shape depending on the era, and every generation has to decide whether it still recognizes the shape it’s wearing now.
Come On Man! Call it what it really is – BOZOBerg’s Law. The only thing missing on this TDS Clown is the Rubber Red Nose and the Rainbow Afro Wig! Total Picture Complete at that point.
The “similarly situated in all material respects” argument going around here is the wrong standard entirely. That’s the equal protection test. This is a First Amendment viewpoint discrimination claim, and the DC Circuit already told Boasberg he got that wrong once, then sent it back so he could apply the right one.
Free speech claims don’t require proving identical riot conditions before a citizen gets a jury. The question is whether the city treated a message differently because of what it said. Bodycam footage of officers watching BLM graffiti go up untouched, then arresting pro-life protesters for the same thing two weeks later, is exactly what a jury weighs. Not a judge deciding alone that no reasonable person could see a problem.
You don’t need a law degree to see the gap here. One side gets arrested for spray paint. The other gets left alone. A citizen needs a jury for that question, which is the one thing being denied.
Yes, you do in fact need a law degree. You do not have a law degree. You, like X, are hardly experts in any aspect of legal proceeding.
What you do have is an ability to write mumbo jumbo.
No one writes better mumbo jumbo than you do. Take a bow.
Olly,
It is true that Viewpoint Discrimination (First Amendment) and Equal Protection (Fourteenth Amendment) are different claims. However, when a plaintiff alleges that a facially neutral law (like a ban on defacing property) was applied unfairly based on their speech, the evidentiary test to prove discrimination is virtually identical.
To prove viewpoint discrimination in enforcement, a plaintiff cannot just say, “I was arrested for my speech.” They must show that the government exercised its enforcement power against them while choosing not to enforce it against another group expressing a different view. To do that, you mathematically and legally must compare yourself to that other group. If the two groups were operating under vastly different conditions, the comparison fails under both the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
You claim, “… the DC Circuit already told Boasberg he got that wrong once, then sent it back so he could apply the right one.”
This mischaracterizes what the appellate court did. The D.C. Circuit reversed Judge Boasberg the first time because he dismissed the case at the very beginning (under Rule 12(b)(6)) by requiring the plaintiffs to prove the city acted with “invidious” (malicious/hostile) intent. The D.C. Circuit said:
No, at this early stage, they just need to plausibly allege viewpoint discrimination. Send it back, let them do >b>discovery, gather evidence, and then look at the facts.
Judge Boasberg complied. He allowed discovery to happen. The plaintiffs got the bodycam footage and police depositions. Then, at the Summary Judgment (Rule 56) stage, Boasberg looked at that evidence and ruled that the facts gathered did not legally show a matching comparison. The D.C. Circuit did not order Boasberg to give them a jury trial; they ordered him to let them gather evidence. He did, and the evidence fell short of the legal threshold.
You claim Free speech claims don’t require proving identical riot conditions before a citizen gets a jury… Bodycam footage of officers watching BLM graffiti go up untouched, then arresting pro-life protesters… is exactly what a jury weighs.
Nope.
A jury only weighs facts when there is a genuine dispute about what actually happened. Here, everyone agrees on the facts: the pro-life group was arrested in a quiet setting, and some BLM protesters were not arrested during mass protests.
The disagreement is a question of law, which only a judge can decide. Under the First Amendment, the government is allowed to consider situational safety and resources when enforcing laws. Federal courts have consistently held that police do not lose their right to operational discretion during civil unrest. If an officer chooses not to arrest someone spray-painting a wall because doing so might trigger a crowd reaction or compromise safety, that is a legitimate, non-speech-related reason for the inaction. Because the pro-life protesters were arrested in a completely safe, controlled environment, the judge ruled as a matter of law that the two scenarios are not comparable.
You say you don’t need a law degree to see the gap here. One side gets arrested for spray paint. The other gets left alone.
This is an intentionally oversimplified view of law enforcement. If a person is caught speeding at 90 mph on an empty suburban street, they will get a ticket. If a person is driving 90 mph inside a massive, chaotic high-speed chase involving dozens of cars, the police might choose not to pull them over immediately to avoid causing a catastrophic pileup.
A citizen does not get a jury trial simply because they point out that two different things happened to two different people. The judge’s role as a gatekeeper is to ensure that the law is not weaponized to force cities into costly trials over routine, common-sense exercises of police discretion during emergencies.
Judge Boasberg did his job exactly as the law requires.
First class BS George. Well done.
In other words, you can’t dispute the facts and the law.
X, you are defending an attack on free speech just to take an opposing view. You are not right about the facts, you are not right about the law and your intended outcome is an attempt to turn us into Britain where there is no 1st A.
That is longhand for you are being a jacka**.
It’s not an attack on free speech. It’s an enforcement issue. Plus writing messages on a sidewalk is not protected speech. Both the BLM messages and the pro-life messages were graffiti. If the pro-life protesters were just carrying signs THEN it would have been a free speech issue.
Prove how I’m wrong about the law.
PS. The police weren’t worried that arresting the BLM spray painters would cause civil unrest, it was SHOWN that police supported the spray painting.
Prove it. Cite a source supporting your claim.
Isn’t that the evidence that was submitted to the appellate court X? Selective enforcement?
Like Hunters IRS tab, selective prosecution.
No, the appellate court only determined if the appropriate process was followed. Not the evidence. They told Boasberg he needed to get the evidence from the plaintiffs to correctly determine if the case merited a jury trial. He complied with the ruling and THEN with the evidence provided he could determine with legal certainty the plaintiffs did not need a jury trial because of the similar circumstances standard.
But that’s not what the evidence showed, which is Turley’s point. He argues that Boasberg distorted the evidence to resolve the case on summary judgment by determining as a matter of law that the groups were not similarly situated. See the article linked at “groused”.
Distorted the evidence? It was “reported” he groused, which he did not. Just the News took some liberties with what the judge said. It’s “Just the News” they are a well known biased news organization.
Judge Boasberg did not distort anything. He did not include evidence the plaintiff was required to provide to determine if their case had the requirements to move on to a jury trial. The appellate court just pointed out to Boasberg he missed a requirement in order to complete his judgment. He complied and after reviewing the evidence he determined, according to the law and the rules that the plaintiff’s case did not meet the legal requirements to meet the “similar situated” standard. By law it allowed him to issue a summary judgment.
He did everything exactly as he is supposed to.
“Just the News took some liberties with what the judge said. It’s “Just the News” they are a well known biased news organization.”
GSX, as a known liar and slanderer, you should be careful with your words. JTN is on the right side of the spectrum, but attempts to be truthful; to bolster your lies, you use media sources that are known not to tell the truth.
The idea that lawbreakers arent arrested during a riot due to risk of escalation is pure BS. It happens all the time.
Additionally done professionally police intervention in the graffiti of BLM might just have calmed things down. But public perception here is the important thing. The perception is that 2 different groups committed the same illegal act and were treated differently. That undermines the rule of law in a VERY real sense.
Of course it “might” have been the case. But it wasn’t. The facts and the law say otherwise. They were treated differently because the circumstances were different. The law says the circumstances must be similar in order to claim they were treated differently. The circumstances were not similar.
It’s a legitimate use of prosecutorial discretion. It’s literally a legal option for law enforcement. Just like a cop can ignore one speeding violation and let another go.
Boasberg should be on SCOTUS. He’d fit in.
He’d fit in, all right – with his head between KBJ’s thighs. Maybe he could help her with the definition she claims to struggle with. Or not, definitions don’t appear to be his strong suit either.
“One side gets arrested for spray paint. The other gets left alone.”
It wasn’t even spray paint. According to the column, it was chalk.
Fair point, that’s true. But that’s not the principle being violated here. Take away every underlying fact, chalk, spray paint, doesn’t matter, and the question stays the same. Was the law applied equally, and does that dispute get a jury. That’s the only thing that matters.
The law was applied equally. What is required by law is that both instances occurred in similar circumstances. That’s not what happened.
Spray paint or chalk? Neither matters. Both were forms of graffiti. That’s a crime. If it involved carrying signs then it would have been a free speech issue.
Ohhhhh, so if they had chalked or painted it on their shirts, then it would be free speech…. You’re a moron.
It doesn’t matter. Either way spraying or using chalk to write on a sidewalk or public building is a crime. It’s not protected speech.
It appears to me that “similarly situated” does matter. But I think the question here is whether, in these circumstances, given the evidence revealed through discovery, this was a question of fact to be resolved by a jury or a question of law to be resolved by a judge. The challengers argued that the evidence showed that some of the BLM protesters drawing graffiti were in small, peaceful groups too, observed by police officers, so the failure to enforce against them was due to viewpoint discrimination not to prudential factors.
So, a question on appeal will be whether Boasberg was correct that the facts revealed through discovery were sufficient to determine as a matter of law that at least some of the BLM protesters who drew graffiti and the challengers were not “similarly situated.” Turley argues that Boasberg was wrong in making this determination.
Daniel, I hear the “question of fact versus question of law” framing, and that’s the real technical fight here. But I’d add a principle underneath it. When a case touches a natural right like the First Amendment, the default should always lean toward letting it go to trial and letting a jury sort out the facts, not toward a judge closing the door early. That’s not about efficiency or caseload. It’s about which mistake is worse.
Getting it wrong by sending a weak claim to trial costs time. Getting it wrong by keeping a real violation from ever reaching a jury costs the actual right. When you’re that unsure which one you’re looking at, the tie should always go to the citizen and the jury, not the state and the judge.
I agree with you, especially when there is some doubt as to whether the case can be resolved as a matter of law, given the facts presented. It will be interesting to see what happens on appeal.
I agree Daniel. Whenever a case involves a fundamental right, it should always lean toward giving the citizen a chance to defend that right in front of a jury, not toward the state deciding to dismiss the case before it’s heard.
You don’t have a right to write messages on a public sidewalk or spray paint them on public buildings.
The statute governing graffiti is D.C. Official Code § 22–3312.01, which covers the defacement of public or private property.The law explicitly states that it is unlawful for any person to “write, mark, draw, or paint, without the consent of the owner” on any public or private structure, including sidewalks, roads, and walls.
It’s not a free speech issue. It’s an enforcement issue.
Daniel, OLLY,
Very interesting line of conversation.
Thank you.
Well Said Olly. Seems quite obvious viewpoint discrimination by the judge. I think this judge suffers some real TDS, if not an overt spasm of Judicial Rage. Maybe he should step down.
All the more reason to start considering term limits for Federal judges both district and appellant.
Who knows they were left alone? It was Deferred Action and they might get just deserts before the 12th of Never.
That answer would come out at trial, in front of a jury, not decided ahead of time by a judge guessing at what might still happen.
OLLY,
Well said.
Anyone with a degree of common sense can see the gap.
Boasberg is compensating for a microscopic member, by throwing his black-robed Fascist weight around every chance he gets.
Turley’s article asserts that Judge Boasberg “substituted his own judgment for a jury” by weighing the evidence himself. However, this mischaracterizes the federal rule for Summary Judgment (Rule 56) or a Motion to Dismiss (Rule 12(b)(6)).
Under federal law, a judge’s job before a trial is to act as a legal gatekeeper. The judge must ask:
If we assume all the plaintiff’s facts are 100% true, do those facts legally meet the strict definition of “similarly situated”?
Judge Boasberg ruled that even if police officers watched BLM protesters spray-paint buildings and did nothing, those officers were managing a mass-riot environment where immediate arrests could have sparked further violence or compromised officer safety. Because the pro-life protesters were not operating under mass-riot conditions, they were >b>not legally similarly situated to the BLM protesters. Therefore, as a matter of law, there was no valid case to send to a jury.
Finding that two groups are not “similarly situated” due to differing chaotic contexts is a routine application of constitutional law. Courts across the United States regularly dismiss selective enforcement claims when plaintiffs try to compare controlled, isolated incidents of law-breaking with offenses committed during large-scale civil disturbances or crowds.
Boasberg did exactly what he’s supposed to do. Turley’s claims about judge Boasberg are false.
What a bunch of hogwash George. Looks like your AI has generated a heap of poop. Again.
Folks, this is the voice of insanity pretending to be Turley’s superior in all things law.
George, tell us about your law degrees. Opps… he doesn’t even have a high school diploma.
Prove me wrong. I’m not being “superior” to Turley. I’m just pointing out facts that can be easily found with a cursory search of the internets and his claims. It’s not hard to do.
Even YOU can do it. No law degree required.
Prove that what I posted is wrong.
We do not have to prove anything George. Your words prove it. Or we should say, your AI proves it. Its a mess of words. Word count means nothing, clarity does.
The fact is – you admit it too – is you do not have a law degree and a trained mind to understand legal doctrine. Turley does, you don’t.
Sorry, did I write superior? We meant you are a posterior.
You still have to prove me wrong. Nobody has done so.
I posted the facts and the law showing why Turley’s claims are misleading and false.
Prove what I posted is wrong.
Here’s what rule 56 requires.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56
Rule 12(b((6),
https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/course_materials/Anderson_CivilBasicBreakdownHndout.pdf
See for yourself.
“Looks like your AI has generated a heap of poop.”
Of course he/she/it would select an AI bot that speaks from its anal sphincter, since he/she/it thinks that represents normalcy.
Turley is being disingenuous again. I’m constantly ‘surprised’ given the fact he’s a law professor. Either he’s using his expertise to push a false narrative or he’s really not fully versed in how the law works.
His assertions can be shown to be misleading by using some simple research and a little digging. Here’s how Turley’s claims are wrong and misleading.
Judge Boasberg is not making decisions based on his personal bias. He’s applying the law as he’s supposed to. Turley relies on his legal illiterate readers to take his word without exercising even a smidge of skepticism.
There’s a legal standard all judges must apply when considering selective enforcement cases. It’s called the similarly situated standard.
To prove selective enforcement under the law, a plaintiff cannot simply show that they were punished while someone else was not. They must prove that the government treated them differently than other people who committed the same underlying act under nearly identical circumstances. The purpose of this standard is to protect prosecutorial discretion. Law enforcement and prosecutors have limited resources and are legally allowed to prioritize certain offenses or handle chaotic situations differently.
There’s also a requirement that all federal courts must apply. Something Turley, as usual ‘neglected’ to mention, that the individuals being compared are similar in “all material respects.” This means the similarities must vastly outweigh the differences regarding:
The Conduct: The actual actions taken by both parties must be virtually identical in severity, scale, and legality.
The Context: The physical environment, timing, and circumstances under which the actions occurred must match.
The Decision-Makers: The specific police officers or officials who handled the incidents should ideally be the same, as different officers may exercise their discretion differently.
In the lawsuit brought by the Frederick Douglass Foundation against the District of Columbia, Judge Boasberg was legally required to evaluate whether the pro-life protesters and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters were truly “similarly situated” in all material respects.The court ultimately found they were not, based on a stark difference in context and safety:
The Pro-Life Context: A small, peaceful group of advocates arrived on a quiet morning to paint/chalk a sidewalk. Police could safely interact with them, enforce the law, and issue citations or arrests without risking a riot.
The BLM Context: The events cited by the plaintiffs occurred during massive, volatile, nationwide protests marked by widespread civil unrest, property damage, and clashes with police.
X is being disingenuous again. He thinks he’s smarter than Turley. George is not a lawyer, has no expertise anything, except making up lies.
You don’t have to be a lawyer to prove Turley’s assertions are false. A little research and digging is all you need.
You can’t show what I posted are lies.
You have not proved anything. Except that you’re a fraud. Seems you dug yourself another hole George.
“Except that you’re a fraud.”
Exactly.
Unless you enjoy being trapped in a web of deceit, you don’t try to refute a fraud. You name it. Then stay very far away.
Sam, what is deceitful about my post? Nobody has shown how or why it’s wrong.
You can refute with facts. Nobody has done that.
What is “disingenuous” about Turley’s post, X?
You gave your version of events, but YOU FAILED TO ENUMERATE TURLEY;S STATEMENTS THAT WERE DISINGENUOUSNESS.
See how that works, little georgie boy X?
I posted what the law requires and the facts. Turley didn’t.
GSX, you post complete garbage, and sometimes that garbage conflicts with itself. Although AI has plenty of good facts, you don’t know how to use them.
Then it’s the wrong standard. In further being disappointed by jurisprudence of American law. It seems ridiculously slapdash at best and just boils down to whom you know. SMH. The offices will never be the same which is why simply relying on the government aka individual officers all mush under the same word, the government.
Ugh.
Sam,
“Except that you’re a fraud.”
Exactly.”
That is why it is not worth to read what GSX says. Nothing but bad AI garbage.
So prove it. An accusation is not proof. Show what I said is a lie. You should have no trouble if it is indeed a lie.
Don’t have to be a lawyer? True, you ain’t. The only thing you proved is that you’re a BS artist.
So prove how I’m wrong. What’s the BS?
If you’re gonna accuse me prove your accusation is valid.
“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” -C.H.
george
‘surprised’ given the fact he’s a law professor.
_______________________________
He is and we know, you are not!
Deep stuff dustoff. Real deep.
Thanks for proving my point about george.
Are you saying pro-life advocates should be more violent in order to obtain equal protection under the law? If not, then how do they obtain equal protection?
A judge rules on that question. It’s Boasbergs’s court, he decides what gets presented. And not. Simple.
No, that’s not the point. It’s the circumstances, the situation in which they were arrested that is not similar.
It’s not about equal protection. It’s about enforcement and the issue of prosecutorial discretion. Not equal protection.
“Judge Boasberg is not making decisions based on his personal bias.”
Of course he is, that is what it means by definition when he is out of sync with the majority of the judiciary and overruled repreatedly by the supreme court.
Because cases shopped to go before a select group of freindly left wing nut judges get the attention of the national pres, the left is under the delusion that these cases reflect the rulings of the courts as a whole. Thy do not. The cases that make the news like most everything that makes the news do so because they are unusual. There have been a large number of cases against Trump that have been successful at the district court level but out of approx 800 federal judges – these cases come from only about 2 dozen judges nationwide. The plantiffs either avoid the rest o the judiciary or lose quietly before them and try again elsewhere. But it is worse – of those cases that make the news – 60-70% are before less than half a dozen judges and 50% are before 3-4 judges.
All of the cases that have some success at the district court level are before less than 2% of all federal judges.
That is a strong indica of bias.
But it is not absolute proof – the PROOF is what happens on appeal – less than 50% of these cases survive the first level of appeal – and those appeals are before mostly similarly oriented judges and under circumstances where the legal presumption is that the lower court should be defered to – atleast until full hearings on the merits have taken place. Still at the LOWEST appellate level these judges are losing interocutory appeals which judge rarely lose.
Next another approximately 50% of these cases get dismissed at the next level of appeal and pretty much all of these cases get dissmissed – if they reach the supreme court.
While this is the legal system working properly – at the same time we have seen a flood of meritless cases through a tiny portion of the judiciary
That is a massive symptom of bias.
There is also a huge problem because where judges are supposed to be randomly selected – somehow the same handful of judges get nearly all the Trump cases.
I note above how selectively these cases are being handle – even lots of judges that are KNOWN to be biased against Trump are mostly avoiding these cases – because they are clear losers and embarrassing and dangerous.
“It’s called the similarly situated standard.” That is narrowly applicable to a tiny portion of cases – further in the smal number of caes that are relevant – Boasberg and the left LOSE similarly situated analysis.
“To prove selective enforcement under the law, a plaintiff cannot simply show that they were punished while someone else was not.”
Incorrect. Similarly situated is a legal argument that if a case was dismissed for cause previously, that a similar case should also be dismissed for cause. The core argument is that if the COURTS found that the defendant had not violated the law previously, then this court should circuit prosecution o any cases that are sufficiently similar.
Selective prosecution is about the decision of LAW ENFORCEMENT and PROSECUTORS to bring cases in the first place.
There are myriads of reasons why prosecutors might bring one case and not bring bring another – particularly when there are differences in time and geography. Similarly situated is not enough to prove selective prosecution, and not particularly LEGALLY relevant to legal evaluations of prosecutions.
Prodsecutors do not bring cases for all crimes, they do not bring cases for all similar crimes. While we want prosecutors to bring every case that can be brought and there is a real problem with excessive prosecutorial discression, Prosecutors often bring one cae and not another – because there is sufficient evidence in one and not the other, or because they are overloaded and have to triage the cases they bring or myriads of other reasons many of those reasons are legitimate SOME are not – but similarly situated is only one factor in proving selective prosecution.
Selective prosecution is very real, but it is near impossible to prove.
“They must prove that the government treated them differently than other people who committed the same underlying act under nearly identical circumstances.”
Incorrect. They must prove that they are likely innocent or that the government is seriously overcharging.
Contra your claim Govenrment can LEGITMATELY not prosecute A while prosecuting B for similar offences
There are myriads of legitimate reasons for doing so
Different policies, focuses, resources, different prosecutors are all reasons one prosecutor could legitimately prosecute when a different one does not.
“The purpose of this standard is to protect prosecutorial discretion. ”
Prosecutorial discretion is massively abused regardless of political orientation. Regardless a claim of selective prosecution most overcome the broad allowance for prosecutorial discretion.
Proving improper prosecution – REQUIRES proving that the defendant is either likely innocent or severely over charged
There is no constitutionally right to Not be prosecuted for a crime merely because others have not been prosecuted for the same crime.
“Law enforcement and prosecutors have limited resources and are legally allowed to prioritize certain offenses or handle chaotic situations differently.”
Correct.
“There’s also a requirement that all federal courts must apply. Something Turley, as usual ‘neglected’ to mention, that the individuals being compared are similar in “all material respects.” This means the similarities must vastly outweigh the differences regarding:”
False – AGAIN there is no right being violated if you are being prosecuted for any allegedly improper reason if you are GUILTY.
Vindictive, selective or similar defense prosecution claims REQUIRE a high probability that you will be found innocent or that you are being egregiously over charged.
With respect to YOUR example – the OPPOSITE is the correct evaluation.
A small peaceful protest is more likely to be innocent of an offence, and less likely to be important to enforcing the law and restoring order.
The purpose of all LAW is to maintain order while protecting individual rights.
When those being prosecuted were no threat to order and were not using force, There is no reasonable basis for prosecution, and it is likely the defendants will prevail in a fair trial.
While in a riot or near riot the FUNDIMENTAL purpose of law enforcement – preventing violence and preserving order are HUGE factors.
Violent and anarchic protestors are ore likely to be found guilty than peaceful ones
You have completely inverted the standards
AS USUAL
John Say, as usual, you’re wrong.
You claim that to prove selective prosecution, a defendant “must prove that they are likely innocent or that the government is seriously overcharging.”
This is legally incorrect. Selective prosecution is a constitutional claim under the Equal Protection Clause, not a defense on the merits of guilt or innocence.
You say the requirement to show that individuals are similar in “all material respects” false.
In reality, the Supreme Court ruled in <b<United States v. Armstrong (1996) that a defendant must show that the government failed to prosecute similarly situated individuals of a different classification who committed the same underlying acts. Guilt does not invalidate this defense; a guilty person can still be the victim of unconstitutional selective prosecution if they were targeted based on a protected trait like race, religion, or political belief.
You claim that “similarly situated” means that if a case was dismissed for cause previously, a similar case should also be dismissed.
This confuses the similarly situated standard used in selective prosecution with the legal doctrines of stare decisis (following legal precedent) or res judicata (matter already judged).
Ira painfully obvious you have no idea what you’re talking about.
You argue that people involved in a “riot or near riot” should be prosecuted less or treated differently because law enforcement is focused on “preserving order,” while peaceful protesters have a better claim to unfair prosecution.
Legally, the opposite is true. The government has a compelling interest in prosecuting violent acts, property damage, and civil disorder. Individuals engaging in violent riots face higher criminal charges because their actions constitute distinct criminal offenses (e.g., assault, destruction of property) that go far beyond peaceful, constitutionally protected protest.
Time to remove him from the bench.
The article did not post. Just the headline.
It appears the judge enforces the laws he likes, but not others. So much for being fair/neutral.
All judges enforce the laws they like. Judges are not fair and neutral.
He’s judging the law as required by law. Besides Judges don’t enforce the law. They interpret law and render judgement.
How about NO KING JUDGES!
Seriously? You put a lot of thought into that one eh?
DC is pro choice. It’s invidious discrimination in this case. The protesters did not follow directions of valid authority. Follow the direction, see a lawyer.