Bill Proposes Quintupling Prison Time to 5 Years for Picketing Near Judges' Homes

The "Protecting Our Supreme Court Justices Act of 2025" aims to significantly increase the penalty for a specific type of protest activity. It proposes amending existing federal law (18 U.S.C. 1507) to raise the maximum prison sentence from one year to five years for anyone convicted of picketing or parading near a federal courthouse or residence of a judge, juror, witness, or court officer with the intent to interfere with justice or influence their decisions.

Fivefold Increase for Picketing Penalties

The core change here is straightforward but substantial: a potential five-year maximum prison term instead of the current one-year cap. This applies to actions defined under 18 U.S.C. 1507, which targets demonstrations specifically intended to obstruct or influence the judicial process. While the bill title references Supreme Court Justices, the actual amendment applies more broadly to the individuals protected under the existing statute. This means protesting near the home of a federal judge with the stated intent to sway their judicial duty could carry a much heavier consequence if this bill becomes law.

Where Protest Meets Penalty

This legislation brings the tension between protecting the judicial process and safeguarding free speech rights into sharp focus. Raising the stakes to a potential five-year felony sentence could significantly deter individuals or groups from organizing demonstrations near protected locations, even if their intent isn't explicitly to obstruct justice. Critics might argue this creates a 'chilling effect' on constitutionally protected assembly and speech, particularly forms of protest aimed at holding powerful figures accountable. The practical interpretation of 'intent to interfere' or 'influence' remains crucial, as a broader application could ensnare protests intended merely to express strong dissent.

Real-World Ripple Effects

The immediate impact would likely be felt by activist groups and individuals who engage in protests targeting the judiciary. While proponents might see this as a necessary step to shield judges from intimidation and ensure judicial independence, opponents could view it as an overreach that disproportionately affects those using protest as a primary means of expression. The shift from a misdemeanor (maximum one year) to a potential felony (up to five years) carries long-term consequences for anyone convicted, impacting future employment, voting rights, and other aspects of life. The effectiveness and fairness of this change would hinge heavily on how law enforcement and the courts interpret and apply the heightened penalty.