Matthew Reardon plans an appeal after a federal magistrate judge rejected his First Amendment defense and restricted his access to Louisiana’s federal courthouses.

https://preview.redd.it/nhe4z0ooirih1.png?width=1254&format=png&auto=webp&s=f2a37d74dd188b180053436307ba745e2fbb745f

Self-described First Amendment auditor and independent journalist Matthew Reardon was sentenced on August 7 to time served and two years of unsupervised probation in the Western District of Louisiana. The sentencing followed his conviction for unreasonably obstructing the entrance to the John M. Shaw U.S. Courthouse in Lafayette. The federal court’s calendar listed the hearing in United States v. Reardon, Case No. 6:25-cr-00227, as a video conference.

The case arose from Reardon’s August 25, 2025 protest against the U.S. Marshals Service. According to the court’s July 16 memorandum order, he began on the public sidewalk with cameras and signs, then moved onto the covered courthouse portico. The court found that he placed posterboard against entrance doors, briefly propped a sign on door handles and left a camera tripod against a locked emergency exit. When a deputy marshal ordered him to move the equipment and warned that it would be seized, Reardon refused and was arrested.

Following a bench trial, the court found him guilty under 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.390(b), which prohibits conduct that “unreasonably obstructs the usual use” of entrances and other areas on federal property. Reardon maintained that his protest, recording and criticism of federal officers were protected expression. He also argued that enforcement was motivated by the content of his message.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas P. LeBlanc rejected those claims. He ruled that the covered portico was a nonpublic forum, unlike the nearby public sidewalk, and that the regulation was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restriction when applied to Reardon’s conduct. The ruling did not create a general ban on journalism outside courthouses. It instead drew a legal boundary between protected expression and what the court considered unreasonable physical obstruction.

Reardon used his sentencing allocution to challenge the government’s proposed access restriction. “The First Amendment does not protect my right to file a lawsuit and nothing else. It protects my right to observe, to record,” he told the court. His attorney asked for time served, or up to the 30-day maximum jail term instead of probation, arguing that a prolonged access condition would chill activity Reardon considers constitutionally protected.

LeBlanc imposed time served plus two years of unsupervised probation. Among the announced conditions, Reardon may not possess weapons or knowingly communicate with someone engaged in criminal activity. He also may not enter any federal courthouse in Louisiana, or adjacent federal grounds, unless he has legitimate business there and gives the local U.S. Marshals Service at least two business days’ advance notice.

The judge said the sentence was not intended to suppress lawful First Amendment activity, but to deter conduct the court had found illegal. Reardon has said he intends to appeal.

That appeal matters beyond one confrontational protest. Government may protect courthouse access and safety, but probation conditions affecting observation, reporting and entry into public institutions still demand careful constitutional review. Civil liberties do not depend on whether officials approve of a speaker’s tone. The central question is whether the government’s response remains closely tied to unlawful conduct without unnecessarily burdening lawful newsgathering, criticism and petitioning activity.

Sources

https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-reardon--e74071ad-c345-4141-965f-3970a02ed24f

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mzxN6zMJkY

https://www.lawd.uscourts.gov/hearings-calendar-lafayette

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-41/subtitle-C/chapter-102/subchapter-C/part-102-74

https://www.wtpnews.org/my-position-ahead-of-fridays-sentencing/