––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
- Posted August 03, 2010
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
News (AP) - Lawmaker wants high court to reopen front door

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A congresswoman wants the Supreme Court to reopen its iconic front entrance to the public.
Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo of California has introduced a nonbinding resolution calling for the high court to reopen its front doors to incoming visitors. Above that entrance are the words, "Equal Justice Under Law."
The Supreme Court in May stopped people from coming up its famous marble steps and in those doors. Instead, visitors are sent to a central screening facility.
Eshoo says closing the doors is not a reflection of the national ideal of openness in the justice system.
While Congress provides funding for the Supreme Court and the White House, the three branches of government seldom interfere in how each other's headquarters operate.
Published: Tue, Aug 3, 2010
headlines Oakland County
- Whitmer signs gun violence prevention legislation
- Department of Attorney General conducts statewide warrant sweep, arrests 9
- Adoptive families across Michigan recognized during Adoption Day and Month
- Reproductive Health Act signed into law
- Case study: Documentary highlights history of courts in the Eastern District
headlines National
- This LA lawyer levels up legal protections in the video game industry
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Legal champions to receive Spirit of Excellence Award at 2026 ABA Midyear Meeting
- Fake Sullivan & Cromwell entities used by scammers should be dissolved, suit says
- Hackers gained access to ‘small number’ of attorney emails at Williams & Connolly, firm confirms
- Before joining Anderson Kill, judge was accused of rude behavior on bench, retaliatory threats in ethics case