‘Loud or unusual noise’ rule at Eugene Federal Building remains blocked

A temporary court order will remain in place blocking enforcement of a rule prohibiting “loud or unusual noise” on sidewalks around the Eugene Federal Building, a judge ruled Friday, Feb. 20.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken heard oral arguments Friday about the rule, which has been challenged by two protesters claiming they’ve been unfairly targeted since fast-tracked rules for the protection of federal property took effect last November.

Aiken first blocked the rule Jan. 10 with a temporary restraining order, known as a TRO.

“For today’s purposes, what I intend to do is underscore and reaffirm the TRO that’s in place, and I will follow up with a detailed opinion,” Aiken said Friday. 

Court records published after the hearing clarified that Aiken issued a preliminary injunction that blocks the rule until she issues a full opinion deciding the case.

Aiken’s Jan. 10 order noted concerns that the rule possibly “has the unconstitutional effect of chilling speech.”

In a court filing, attorneys representing government officials have said the noise rule “serves to balance the right to engage in political speech with the need to allow continued functioning of government services.”

IRS employee statements

The Eugene Federal Building houses a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office, and since last summer it has been a frequent site for protests and demonstrations against immigration enforcement tactics under the administration of President Donald Trump.

But the building also houses offices for other federal agencies, and court documents filed by the government included handwritten statements from IRS employees.

Federal Protective Service officers included the statements in their investigative report about a Nov. 25 citation issued to one of the protesters, Anna Lardner, who is suing to block the rule.

The IRS manager said their office was “directly next to the location (where) loud or distracting noises were occurring as a result of organized protests.”

The manager said the protesters were “using bullhorns and intentionally distracting methods to disrupt normal functioning of the building and my office. Routine business is interrupted and employees/taxpayers are affected.”

Another IRS employee described noise as “extremely disruptive to business with taxpayers.” A third complained that a “high level of noise makes it very difficult for me to hold conversations with taxpayers I serve.”

Lardner and co-plaintiff Chloe Longworth are represented in the lawsuit by the Eugene-based Civil Liberties Defense Center.

Marianne Dugan, an attorney with the Civil Liberties Defense Center, argued Friday the IRS employee statements “just do not rise to the level of a substantial interference with operations, which is what the courts have required to regulate noise in the protest context.”

Other arguments

During Friday’s hearing, a Department of Justice attorney, Michael Velchik, began to argue that “relative loudness” could differ depending on the type of federal building.

But Aiken interjected, stating she will “tailor my ruling” to the Eugene Federal Building.

“I’m going to write for our community,” Aiken said, rather than writing an opinion “for the United States.”

Velchik argued that the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, rule being challenged is similar to previous regulations focused on activity inside government buildings.

“The only difference here is the DHS regulations extended the authority of [the Federal Protective Service] to address these types of nuisances to the extent that they’re (protesters) outside the building, but affecting operations on the property,” Velchik said.

Velchik argued that the use of the word “nuisance” in the regulation being challenged helped ensure that the rule is not overly broad.

“We would emphasize it’s not just, quote, creating a ‘loud or unusual noise.’ It’s also ‘noxious odor or other nuisance,’” Velchik said. “And so we interpret the term ‘nuisance’ to limit the scope of the prohibition on louder than usual noises.”

Dugan argued that there’s already been a chilling effect on speech because of the rule, with protesters fearing being taken into custody. Dugan noted court records showing Longworth was handcuffed Nov. 18 after being told she violated the rule.

Dugan also argued that there is no dispute the sidewalk is “a traditional public forum,” and, in the case of megaphone use by Lardner, noted that she was reading out loud the book “On Tyranny” and “addressing cars.”

“The megaphone was a tool of her political speech. She’s not just standing there wanting to make noise, to disrupt things. She is using it to be effective in her speech,” Dugan said.

Aiken spoke about the history of the Eugene Federal Building site: “This has been a historic and traditional place of demonstration for decades, correct?” Aiken asked Dugan.

Aiken also referred to ways of measuring loudness.

“I know there are measurable ways to look at this, as opposed to just an eye of the beholder view, or, ear of the beholder, for loudness,” Aiken said, noting other disputes about protests at sites such as Planned Parenthood locations.

“It’s always come down to megaphones and noise. And so we’re not unfamiliar with these issues,” Aiken said.

In a written statement released by the Civil Liberties Defense Center after the hearing, Lardner referred to federal officers trying “to punish and brutalize those who speak out.”

“Today’s preliminary injunction ensures that people who want to speak out against the civil rights abuses of this regime can do so with less fear of violence and arrest for protected free speech activities,” Lardner said.