In Mahoney v. United States Capitol Police Board, (D DC, April 5, 2022), a D.C. federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to a clergyman who was denied a permit to hold a large prayer vigil on part of the Capitol grounds. Groups of 20 or more were permitted at that location only if sponsored by a member of Congress. The court rejected plaintiff's selective enforcement claim, saying in part:
Members of Congress sponsoring or organizing demonstrations on the Capitol Grounds present “distinguishable legitimate prosecutorial factors that might justify making different prosecutorial decisions with respect to them.”... Consider the numerous ways in which Members are different from non-Members while on the Capitol Grounds. In such a setting, for instance, the Member is at her workplace, she enjoys private access to many areas that are otherwise restricted, and she is carrying out her unique constitutional duties as a legislator and representative of her constituents. Numerous legal principles recognize this reality and accord Members unique status while on the Capitol Grounds.
The court also found that plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on his freedom of assembly claim.
