After hearing about attempts to quell peaceful protests outsides the homes of Supreme Court justices using a draconian law, we have decided to publish the locations of those protests in support of all threatened with prosecution for peacefully protesting outside the homes of judges and other court personnel. Any statute which prohibits citizens from exercising their right to peaceably assemble in public violates the First Amendment. For that reason, we want to make sure that people have the information they need to exercise their rights where they choose. If prosecuted, we urge people to challenge the statute itself for being too broad.
18 U.S.C. 1507 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507) sweeps too broadly to withstand a proper constitutional challenge. A statute is unconstitutionally overbroad if its language covers any Constitutionally protected activity. The right to petition the court for a redress of grievances and to peaceably assemble in furtherance of that redress is a right guaranteed to everyone in America by the last part of the First Amendment which says, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The draconian statute reads as follows:
"Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." - 18 U.S.C. 1507
The Unconstitutional part reads "or with the intent of influencing" which covers anything you could otherwise legally do while protesting outside someone's home hoping that your voice will be heard and considered. We don't have a problem with the rest of it because Congress has the right to protect court proceedings from being obstructed, impeded, or interfered with because courts need to function, but they cannot legally stop people from attempting to influence the court by peaceably assembling in public. The First Amendment does not allow Congress to pass laws which restrict the right to peaceably protest on public property at all and it certainly does not allow Congress to issue discriminatory edicts based solely on the occupations of those living nearby. Anybody that lacks the self discipline necessary to not allow protesters to influence their rulings has no business being a judge in the first place.
The political right is demanding that the Justice Department arrest anyone that protests outside the home of a Supreme Court justice. They are acting as if the Biden administration is behaving inappropriately by not directing federal law enforcement to violate the rights of anyone that peaceably assembles outside the home of a Supreme Court justice. The truth is that the administration likely realizes that enforcing the statute under these circumstances would result in constitutional challenges likely to win. Having an outdated unconstitutional law on the books to deter people is worth more than the risk of losing that statutory protection. When laws like that are applied too broadly then the target can raise an as applied constitutional challenge. As applied challenges are usually more likely to succeed than challenging the statutory language in an effort to find any plausible unconstitutional application.
To show our support for all those that exercise their First Amendment right to protest judges outside their homes, here is a list of locations where people have been protesting SCOTUS recently. As always, we ask that nobody use this information for any unlawful purpose. Unlawful purposes do not include violations of laws that are themselves illegal. A law is illegal when its language sweeps so broadly that it proscribes Constitutionally protected activities. When we say "do not use this information for any unlawful purpose" we are only referring to legitimate laws and legitimate applications of those laws. For instance, we are ok with people violating a law which illegally attempts to obstruct their ability to peaceably assemble, but we are not ok with people breaking laws against physically harming people or destroying property while violating the illegal law under these circumstances.
It is hard to think of a more harmless sight to see anywhere than a bunch of unarmed young women protesting peacefully. If anyone is so intimidated by such a harmless sight that they would truly seek to do something about it out of fear then they are cowards.
Finally, we have noticed that protests outside the homes of government officials are rarely violent even when the protesters are largely the same people known for messing up government buildings. We think that is because people know they are being heard outside homes, don't feel the need to do anything else, and are afraid of being accused of having ill intent.
Here is a list of known home addresses belonging to members of the Supreme Court:
John Glover Roberts Jr.
3805 Meadow Lane
Chevy Chase, MD
Brett Michael Kavanaugh
3706 Underwood Street
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Amy Coney Barrett
2035 Stephanie Marie Drive
Falls Church, VA
6665 Rutledge Drive
Fairfax Station, VA 22039
Samuel Anthony Alito Jr.
1120 Greenway Road
Fort Hunt, VA 22308
Neil McGill Gorsuch
c/o HOWLING COYOTE LLC
11521 Dalyn Terrace
Potomac, MD 20854
We like to make sure to use sources that are already publicly available so that nobody can accuse us of making publicly available that which was not already public in the first place. None of the above is not already available elsewhere on the internet. We simply spent an afternoon seeing what we could find using open source intel. The most common giveaway is in public records. All listings under the judges' names are usually missing, but listings remain for their current spouses' names which include addresses featuring homes matching recent media coverage. In some cases, sites known for posting addresses obtained from public records had removed the addresses, but we were able to find outdated copies of the pages. Another giveaway is the blurring of the images on Google Earth. In the case of Clarence Thomas, we checked the record of the company that technically owns his wife's home and found his name listed as a former owner of the company. We didn't make anything publicly available, but we did connect the dots. Protests have taken place at each of the above locations as far as we can tell.
Even if some of this information were not present in up to date public records at the time of this publication, it marks the locations of newsworthy events which were caught on camera and broadcasted all over the world. If ever there were a time to argue for the ability of the public spotlight to make newsworthy what may have otherwise been personal information this would be the perfect time to make it. That is especially true when people have been accused by the media of leaking the information prior. Just as the home of John Wilks Booth became a place of public interest due to the notoriety of a tenant, so too are the above locations of public concern. People can forever publish the address of Booth's house and that would not change if a judge moved in. Now we can forever list the above locations as the spots of peaceful protests in support of a woman's right to have it scrambled and vacuumed out.
The Gorsuch house has some strange records associated with it. The property is listed as the headquarters of a company called Howling Coyote LLC (https://apps.montgomerycountymd.gov/realpropertytax/ViewDetail.aspx?RID=8151017). That means that Howling Coyote is probably a shell company created for the purpose of concealing the name of the owner. This appears to be the same property featured in news footage of protests outside Gorsuch's home. This means that the home is probably Gorsuch's, but somebody else might be running a business there as well. The address is prominently listed in the publicly available address history of Gorsuch's 22 year old daughter whose name we are omitting because she appears to be a victim in this as well or at least will be if some random dude knocks her up. The address popped up in her records around the time she turned 18 shortly before she moved to Colorado (probably for college full of random dudes). She probably made the mistake listing her home address on some government form with her name not realizing that is all it would take for it to show up in her address history whenever we run her name through the background check service we subscribe to. Mr. and Mrs. Gorsuch seem to have covered their tracks well, but as is often the case one of their kids unwittingly gave them away.
The links underneath each address is to Google Maps, so think of this like maps to stars homes, but for people looking for justice not just stars. In fact, lawyers wanting to get noticed might want to consider sending copies of their Amicus Briefs to these locations.
Perhaps we will expand the scope of our research to include the liberal arm of the court so that nobody feels discriminated against.
UPDATE: The court voted 5-4 to overturn Roe vs Wade today. John Roberts is the only justice listed on this page that voted against overturning Roe vs. Wade. Roberts was originally listed here before the decision was published after protests were held at his house. While we appreciate his vote in this case, he was still Chief Justice when the court refused to hear appeals of Ninth Circuit decisions upholding violations of the constitutional rights of the founder of this website, so his information will not be removed.