Republican senators revealed new evidence Wednesday that the Justice Department ordered federal marshals to ignore a law that should have protected conservative Supreme Court justices after last year’s leak of a high court opinion.
The senators said they have obtained several sets of “post orders” laying out rules for the marshals assigned to protect the justices. The orders acknowledged the existence of laws prohibiting protesting to influence a judge’s rulings. But the orders then said the Marshals Service was “not in a position to enforce those laws.”
Marshals were ordered not to make any arrests unless someone physically threatened justices or their families and were told to coordinate “in advance” with the local U.S. attorney before enforcing laws.
Sen. Katie Britt, Alabama Republican, said that is “clear evidence that DOJ actively sought to dissuade [Marshals Service] personnel from enforcing” the anti-protesting law.
She and three GOP colleagues said that undercuts the sworn testimony of Attorney General Merrick Garland, who told lawmakers earlier this year that marshals were told they “have full authority to arrest people under any federal statute” including Section 1507, the anti-protesting law.
He said the marshals “on the ground” made their own determinations and must not have seen any violations.
“In the aftermath of your appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it became clear that your testimony was misleading and incorrect,” Ms. Britt wrote, joined by Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Mike Lee of Utah.
The Washington Times has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.
The leak of a draft opinion in the Dobbs case on May 2, 2022, sparked new threats against the GOP-appointed justices believed to be backing a ruling overturning the Roe v. Wade decision establishing a national right to abortion.
Justices found their homes besieged, and one man even stands charged with planning to assassinate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.
The Justice Department assigned marshals to protect the justices, but the lack of arrests stunned some observers who contrasted that with zealous prosecutions of pro-life protesters.
Those critics said the government should have been making arrests under Section 1507, which bans picketing or parading “with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty.”
Ms. Britt had previously obtained the training materials given to the marshals before they deployed to protect the justices. Those materials ordered deputies not to make arrests unless the justices’ “physical safety” was threatened. The materials specifically urged deputies to ignore Section 1507’s language on “intent of influencing” a judge.
She confronted Mr. Garland with the materials at a hearing in late March.
He said he was unfamiliar with them.
In an April hearing, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco defended Mr. Garland’s stance, saying he was correct in saying the deputies were free to make arrests.
The newly revealed post orders belie that, the senators said, and “raise a number of troubling questions regarding DOJ’s dishonesty and impropriety with respect to its handling of this matter.”
They urged Mr. Garland to correct his previous statements to Congress and also demanded the Justice Department turn over a complete set of training materials, guidance and orders from the protective detail, and in particular asked what role Mr. Garland and Ms. Monaco played.
They also asked the department to reveal who did craft the Marshals Service materials that discouraged arrests under the anti-protesting law.
In addition to Ms. Britt, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan fired off a letter Wednesday asking U.S. Marshals Service Director Ronald L. Davis to turn over documents.
“The training materials provided to the U.S. Marshals strongly suggest that the Biden Administration is continuing to weaponize federal law enforcement agencies for partisan purposes,” wrote Mr. Jordan, Ohio Republican.
• Stephen Dinan can be reached at sdinan@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.