DEDHAM, Mass. — The protesters fighting the court’s buffer zone in the high-profile Karen Read case have scored a win in federal appeals court.

The buffer zone around Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham was expanded for the Read retrial after jurors during the first trial reported that they could hear loud protesters during deliberations.

As a result of that expanded buffer zone, a group of protesters sued state officials in Massachusetts federal court — seeking a preliminary injunction against the new buffer zone.

After a federal district judge ruled against the protesters and denied a preliminary injunction, the protesters brought their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The federal appeals court has ruled that it’s vacating the district judge’s decision, sending the case back down to the district court.

“Read’s case has become something of a cultural phenomenon,” the appeals court wrote in its ruling. “It has drawn headlines, controversy, and, as relevant here, throngs of demonstrators near the Norfolk County Courthouse. The prior behavior of some of those demonstrators — including loud protests and the display of materials directed toward trial participants — frames a potential conflict between the state court’s effort to conduct a fair trial and demonstrators’ right to express their views.

“A group of demonstrators sought a preliminary injunction in the District of Massachusetts to secure their right to demonstrate in certain areas, which the district court denied,” the appeals court added. “As we explain below, the parties’ arguments and positions have evolved and narrowed during these expedited appellate proceedings, and we therefore send the case back to the district court to consider anew both Plaintiffs’ motion and the Commonwealth’s arguments against it.”

The initial buffer zone for the first Read trial was 200 feet around the courthouse. Several protesters challenged the buffer zone in state court, arguing that it violated their rights under the First Amendment. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected their challenge.

Then for the retrial, the court expanded its ban beyond the 200 feet radius around the courthouse. The buffer zone extends to the area west and northwest of the courthouse, bounded by Bates Court, Bullard Street, Ames Street, and Court Street.

The protesters during arguments told the appeals court that they don’t want to demonstrate along the pathways — including public sidewalks and roads — that trial participants enter and exit the courthouse.

“The upshot is that Plaintiffs have suggested to us that they challenge the Order as applied to quiet, offsite demonstrations on public property, in areas and at times that do not interfere with trial participants’ entrance into and exit from the Courthouse, that do not interfere with the administration of justice, and that will not influence any trial participants in the discharge of their duties,” the appeals court wrote.

The appeals court cited a precedent that bars only protests directed toward interfering with the administration of justice or influencing trial participants.

“With Plaintiffs’ position now clarified, we think it prudent to vacate (but not reverse) the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction and remand this case for further proceedings to determine how the Order has been interpreted and applied,” the appeals court wrote.

“Of course, the state court could, entirely of its own volition, further simplify any potential First Amendment issues by amending the Order to introduce a mens rea requirement… — i.e., by limiting the Order to demonstrations directed toward interfering with the administration of justice or influencing trial participants,” the court added. “Based on Plaintiffs’ representations at oral argument, such an amendment would allow Plaintiffs to engage in their desired quiet, offsite, nonobstructive demonstrations, while minimizing the risk that demonstrators will improperly interfere with the judicial process.”

_____

©2025 MediaNews Group, Inc. Visit at bostonherald.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.