Supreme Court won’t hear case of woman ticketed for honking horn

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled whether states can ticket drivers who honk their horns after a California woman argued that using car horns is protected speech under the First Amendment. refused to hear the case.

in Brief order issued on Monday In the morning, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case without comment.

of appeal to the high court The incident was brought about by Susan Porter of California, who supports a group that rallied in front of the office of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) in 2017. He was ticketed for honking his car horn. The group was protesting Issa’s support for former President Trump.

The ticket was ultimately dismissed, but Porter argued that the California traffic law, which prohibits excessive honking for purposes other than vehicle safety, was unconstitutional. California is one of at least 41 states that have enacted laws restricting the use of car horns.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of California supported this law Last year, the case was ruled 2-1 in response to Porter’s challenge.

“The Ninth Circuit’s opinion reflects the continued dilution of the First Amendment’s protections for symbolic speech,” Porter’s lawyers wrote in their appeal to the nation’s highest court. mentioned in.

Porter argues that car horns have been used to express political views since the birth of the automobile, and that both Presidents Biden and Trump “recognize the horn as a form of political expression, “It shows the ubiquity of car horns in American politics.”

Her complaint pointed to one of Biden’s drive-in rallies in 2020. In it he said:“If America wants to lead again, honk. If America wants to trust each other again, honk. If America wants to unite again, honk.”

“Every day in this country, motorists express themselves by honking their car horns as they pass roadside picket lines, demonstrations, and protests,” her attorneys wrote. “Such “honking” not only serves as a means for motorists to convey their support to their compatriots, but also to amplify the cause of their compatriots. A car horn is the sound of democracy in action. ”

Mr Porter’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to reaffirm the “interim review” upheld by the court. United States v. O’Brien, This created a test to determine whether government regulation of symbolic speech was justified. The Ninth Circuit found that California’s law passed interlocutory review.

The Supreme Court has ruled that free speech protection extends to other forms of expression beyond the spoken word. A 2-1 majority on the Ninth Circuit held that the law was constitutional, arguing that while car horns can be an expressive act, the law furthers California’s interest in traffic safety. I considered it.

The dissenting justices said they would block enforcement of the law allowing “political protest horns.”

David Roy is the legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, which brought the case and argued it in the 9th Circuit.^th Circuit told The Hill he was “obviously disappointed” that the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

“We believe that honking your car horn in support of a protest or to engage in personal expression is a core First Amendment right, a long-standing American tradition. I continue to believe that,” Roy said, later adding the dissenting justices in the 9th Circuit.^th The circuit “was done exactly right.”

Roy said he “hopes” the issue will be litigated in the future through other similar lawsuits and said the issue “is not over.”

The Hill has reached out to Porter’s attorney for comment.

This article was updated at 2:15 p.m.