The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, found that the city had “almost abandoned enforcement of defacement ordinances” during Black Lives Matter demonstrations and riots of 2020. However, the city went after pro-life demonstrators who used chalk in front of an abortion clinic.

After two pro-life activists had been arrested in 2020, the Frederick Douglass Foundation filed a lawsuit against the city. The court found that Washington, D.C. enforced its anti-graffiti law “selectively”, and found many examples of BLM vandals defacing property in anti-police messages.

During the Black Lives Matter demonstrations, the District almost completely abandoned the enforcement of its defacement ordinance. This created a categorical exception for those who wrote ‘Black Lives Matter” messages on both public and private properties. The complaint gives a few examples. Protesters added an equal sign to Mayor Bowser’s street mural and the words ‘Defund The Police’, so that the message read: ‘Black Lives Matter= Defund The Police’.

The police officers did not intervene when the alteration was taking place. The Black Lives Matter activists did not obtain a permit, nor consent from anyone else. However, they were not arrested or charged for defacing the building. The District actually left the addition up for several months before removing it mid-August.

Battle for Arizona's Senate Seat Arizona’s Senate race is heating up, and Kari Lake is our conservative champion. Facing attacks from the Left and resistance from the GOP establishment, she needs our support to secure victory. By sponsoring her campaign, you provide crucial backing for her fight against the liberal agenda. Join us in sponsoring Kari Lake today! 1776 Coalition Sponsored

The court also cited an example where protesters “covered the construction scaffolding outside of the Chamber of Commerce in graffiti, murals and photographs.” The protesters again were not stopped or arrested despite flagrant violations of the ordinance.

“Specifically, selective application of a neutral law that is constitutional on its face may violate the FirstAmendment when the prosecutorial decisions of the government are based on the content of speech or the viewpoint expressed.” The court stated that it is well-established that the government “may not regulate speech on the basis of its content or message.”

Students for Life of America president Kristan Hawkins said, “It is very encouraging that a unanimous decision of 3-0 was in favor of free speech rights of peacefully protesting pro-life students in our nation’s capital.” “Viewpoint discrimination in Washington, D.C. is not American. We look forward to hearing more as the case progresses about how officials chose winners and losers when enforcing their laws.” We will continue to fight for our students’ rights to speak out against Planned Parenthood’s abortion industry and for their preborn children and mothers.