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.

Follow @hillelaron