[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 147 (Tuesday, September 13, 2022)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 INTRODUCTION OF THE NO FENCING AT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 13, 2022

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the No Fencing at the 
United States Supreme Court Act, which would prohibit the installation 
of permanent fencing at the U.S. Supreme Court. Last year, I introduced 
a bill that would prohibit the installation of permanent fencing at the 
U.S. Capitol complex.
  After the Supreme Court's draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's 
Health was leaked in May, the Supreme Court installed temporary anti-
climb fencing around its grounds, which remained in place until late 
August. While the Supreme Court has not announced plans to install 
permanent fencing, temporary security measures often become permanent.
  While I understand the importance of protecting the Supreme Court 
building, the Justices and Supreme Court employees, we can and must 
maintain our commitment to security without sacrificing public access 
by using the least restrictive means necessary to address security.
  Permanent fencing would send an un-American message to the nation and 
the world, by transforming our democracy from one that is accessible 
and of the people to one that is exclusive and fearful of its own 
citizens. The Supreme Court has long welcomed First Amendment protests 
and demonstrations without becoming a fortress.
  Public property should be open to the public. The distance between 
government and the people has grown, with trust in government, 
including the Supreme Court, low. We should not entrench that distance 
further by placing intimidating barriers between ourselves as public 
servants and the people we serve. There are more effective, less 
obtrusive security solutions than archaic fencing.
  Moreover, the Supreme Court is in a residential neighborhood in the 
District of Columbia. The Supreme Court grounds are widely used by both 
D.C. residents and visitors. Permanent fencing would block that use.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

                          ____________________