Judge blocks arrests of Oregon protesters over 'unusual noise'

(CN) — A judge in Oregon, Friday, reaffirmed her temporary restraining 
order, blocking a Department of Homeland Security regulation that 
criminalized certain actions taken by protestors outside a federal 
building, including making “unusual noise.”

Two protesters — Chloe Longworth and Anna Lardner — sued the Donald Trump 
administration in December, claiming they were repeatedly targeted for 
protesting ICE on public sidewalks outside a one-block federal building in 
Eugene. The pair demonstrated there every Tuesday and said they were 
“subjected to arrest, detention, citation and warnings of the samedue to 
their vocal protests," according to their complaint.

The lawsuit challenges new Department of Homeland Security rules that took 
effect late last year and criminalized common protest tactics outside 
federal buildings, including making loud noise. In November, Longworth was 
arrested and given a citation for “stating her opinions regarding the lack 
of moral character exhibited by ICE agents” using a megaphone, with the 
citation listing “prohibited conduct — unusual noise.” Lardner was 
threatened with a citation while reading Timothy Snyder’s book, “On 
Tyranny,” to passing cars and pedestrians, using a megaphone."

The new regulations, the plaintiffs wrote, “violate Oregon and US 
constitutions, and are obviously intended to chill the people’s First 
Amendment rights on traditional public forums.”

Five days after the federal complaint was filed, U.S. District Judge Ann 
Aiken issued a temporary restraining order, enjoining the Department of 
Homeland Security from enforcing the new regulations.

“Whether or not they in fact were targeted, the danger of discriminatory 
application exists,” Aiken wrote in her ruling, adding that the protestors 
had “raised serious questions going to the merits of their First Amendment 
claims concerning the vagueness and overbreadth of the Unusual Noise 
Provision as applied to a traditional public forum.”

Arguing to extend the temporary restraining order, plaintiff’s attorney 
Marianne Dugan of the Civil Liberties Defense Center said her clients used 
the megaphone as a “tool of political speech. They were not just standing 
outside making noise.”

The government countered that the protests distracted employees and made 
them feel unsafe. In a pending motion to dismiss, Department of Justice 
lawyers cited an Internal Revenue Service employee who “complained that 
the noise from the demonstration was interfering with the agency’s routine 
business operations.” Other IRS employees also complained, “saying that it 
was interfering with their ability to interview customers, a critical part 
of their tax review duties.”

“Although warnings were issued to the protestors, including Plaintiff 
Lardner, no arrests were made or citations issued,” the government wrote.

On Friday, Department of Justice attorney Michael Velchik described the 
current rules as a “bread and butter set of regulations used to protect 
federal buildings” nationwide, noting that “Oregon state law already 
prohibits making unreasonable noises.” He emphasized the regulations were 
not aimed at loud noise generally, but at banning “nuisances.”

“It’s not just any loud noise,” Velchik said. “It’s interfering with 
operations on federal property,” though he later clarified that by 
nuisance, he meant very loud noises coming through the megaphone.

“There has to be some reasonable measure for what is loudness,” Judge 
Aiken said, sounding skeptical. “I know there are measurable ways to look 
at this, as opposed to just, eye of the beholder, or ear of the beholder.”

Velchik argued that different decibel levels could disturb different 
operations — a veteran’s center, for instance, could be more sensitive. 
Aiken cut him off.

“I’m not writing for the U.S.,” she said sternly. “I’m writing for our 
community. I understand the building and the use of it as a historic place 
for demonstrations.”

Aiken ended the hearing by saying she would “underscore and reaffirm” the 
existing temporary restraining order and follow up with a more detailed 
opinion. She then noted that “other measures being taken at that building 
that should be extremely helpful in addressing some of the nuances,” 
though it was unclear what she meant.

For now, the case remains active.

Neither set of lawyers responded to an email requesting a comment on the 
ruling.

https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-blocks-arrests-of-oregon-protesters-
over-unusual-noise/