Court Opinion

ID: 9705100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:56:16.018204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:07.878577
License: Public Domain

GALLAGHER, Senior Judge,
concurring:
Initially, I agree with the government’s assertion here that the statute involved, D.C.Code § 9-112(b)(7) is constitutional on its face, and needs no narrowing construction to save it. But, on the other hand, we are not writing on a clean slate in this case as this court has previously decided that what is called the “tourist standard” must be applied in the trial court to save the statute,1 which provides:
It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons willfully and knowingly ... [t]o parade, demonstrate, or picket within any of the Capitol Buildings.
I see nothing constitutionally unreasonable in restricting demonstrators to the outside of the Capitol buildings. In actuality, the protestors are able to reach the same audience outside as inside the buildings, because the public enters and exits the same buildings. In any event, it is not an unreasonable First Amendment restriction to prevent demonstrations in the corridors of those buildings. The grounds immediately adjoining the Capitol afford all sorts of opportunities for demonstrators to be heard and seen without entering the corridors of the buildings to demonstrate and thereby adversely affect the internal process of government for no saving reason, constitutionally-
Here, the defendants were avowedly a group of persons protesting the government’s policies in Central America. It would seem, therefore, in relation to the “tourist standard” test, that by definition the defendants were not engaged in activities “normally engaged in by tourists.”
I agree that prior decisions of the court require the application in the trial court of the “tourist standard” test to save the constitutionality of the statute. As the majority opinion points out, the trial judge here did not comply sufficiently with this court’s controlling opinions on that score.
For this reason, I concur in the result in this proceeding.

. The government was required, however, to assert its contentions with due regard for the controlling opinions of this court in relation to the statute.