ACLU Brings Case Against Hudson County Officials Over Protesters

JERSEY CITY, NJ — The American Civil Liberties Union's New Jersey branch filed a case on Monday against Hudson County Executive Tom DeGise and five county commissioners claiming they violated protesters' First Amendment rights with a temporary restraining order.

The restraining order was filed in December following a protest that took place in front of DeGise's home on New York Avenue in Jersey City and was cited in the Dec. 8th arrest of four protesters gathered in DeGise's neighborhood. The ACLU claims the protesters were in compliance with local noise ordinances and that the arrest was a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The ACLU case seeks to have the restraining order dissolved and the case against the protesters dismissed.

The five people the ACLU is defending, whose identities were kept anonymous in the filing, had been protesting the Hudson County Officials' controversial decision to continue overseeing detained immigrants within the county's correctional facility. Protesters focused and demonstrated in front of DeGise's home because he was "[t]he sole person responsible for ending [the ICE contract]' following the Commissioners’ vote," according to the case filing

The restraining order places several restrictions on the protesters, according to the ACLU, including a one-hour window to protest, mandatory notice to police and a maximum of 10 people gathered.

"This case is about the people’s right to speak and protest against a government policy. Our clients were using public sidewalks to express themselves and should be subject to the same laws as everyone else who uses them," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Jeanne LoCicero. "These officials went to court to insulate themselves from opposing views. It’s not just a misuse of public resources, it’s also unconstitutional."

The case reads in part:

"Even if the Court finds that the injunction is a content-neutral restriction of speech, the TRO unconstitutionally burdens far more speech than necessary to serve a significant governmental interest and should be invalidated."

The full case brief can be viewed here.