[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 200 (Tuesday, December 5, 2023)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1167]
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, December 5, 2023

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. 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. Earlier this 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 2022, the Supreme Court installed temporary 
anti-climb fencing around its grounds, which remained in place until 
late August 2022. 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, Supreme Court 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 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 public servants and 
the people they 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.

                          ____________________