Gage County Supervisors Look to Create Policy on Courthouse Protests

By Gordon HopkinsAfter months of demonstrations at the Gage County Courthouse, county supervisors have asked county attorney Roger Harris to create a written policy for protesters. This request has resulted in a letter from an attorney representing the group that has been protesting in front of the courthouse for months and suspect this is an attempt to “restrict” the group’s right to protest.The group, called Democracy on Life Support, has held demonstrations at the courthouse almost every Sunday since they began on April 6 of this year, protesting the policies of President Donald Trump.At a meeting, Gage County Attorney Roger Harris indicated county policy does not allow demonstrations on the courthouse lawn. However, this is not a formal, written policy.One of the protestors, Charles Riedesel, told FJN, “Since this became news, a couple of us have been doing some checking. According to the ACLU, there should be no prohibition on using courthouse lawns for demonstrations.” Therefore, at a meeting on Wednesday, October 29, the board asked the county attorney to create a written policy.In response to the announcement, attorney Chuck Bentjen of Bentjen Elderlaw and Legal Services, LLC, representing Roy Lauby, another protestor, and Democracy on Life Support sent a letter to the County Attorney dated November 11.The letter suggests the move is intended to specifically target the group, “While we appreciate the Board's desire to formalize rules, we must respectfully urge the Board to reconsider and cease its effort to draft a new policy regarding the use of the courthouse grounds. My clients and I have concluded that the core problem is not the absence of a policy. The problem is the unconstitutional action: the ad-hoc, targeted instruction by sheriffs (sic) deputies ordering a specific, peaceful group to move from the grass, a restriction never before enforced.” The letter insists such action is unconstitutional, “This action, in itself, was a content-based restriction on a traditional public forum. The concern is that any policy drafted now, in direct response to my clients' protected activity, would be fatally flawed. No matter how "neutrally" worded, a policy created at this moment would be seen by any court as pretextual. Its true purpose—to restrict a specific, disfavored viewpoint—would be transparent. As you know, a policy that is content-neutral on its face but is intended to 'burden a particular message' in unconstitutional. (See Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 576 U.S. 155 (2015)).”FJN reached out to Roger Harris for comment. As of press time, no response was received.

Longest Shutdown in U.S. History Finally Ends

Gage County Sheriff Warns of Jail Bond Scam

Related Articles

High Winds Fuel Multiple Wild Fires in SE Nebraska

Sen. Ricketts Makes the Case for War

City Offices Closed During Move

A Broken Wire Over Railroad Tracks Leaves City in the Dark