Doe v. Seattle Police Dept.

_________________
_________________
1 Cite as: 605 U. S. ____ (2025)
Statement of A
LITO, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24A982
JOHN DOE, ET AL. v. SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[June 4, 2025]
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and
by her referred to the Court is denied.
Statement of J
USTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE
THOMAS joins, respecting the denial of the application for a
stay.
I concur in the Court’s denial of the application for a stay
pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari.
Among other things, the applicants do not appear to have
requested a stay from the Washington Supreme Court or
any other Washington court prior to asking this Court for a
stay. See this Court’s Rule 23. Furthermore, the mandate
of the Washington Supreme Court was issued more than a
month ago, and the applicants have not adequately ex-
plained why at this point they still face an imminent danger
of irreparable harm. App. to Opposition to Application for
Stay of Mandate 4a–5a.
The Court’s denial of this application, however, should
not be read as an endorsement of the decision below or its
interpretation of the First Amendment. The applicants are
four current or former Seattle police officers who were in-
vestigated in connection with their presence in Washing-
ton, D. C., on January 6, 2021. It was found that three of
these officers attended the rally on the National Mall but
did not proceed from there to the U. S. Capitol and instead
returned to their hotels. See 563 P. 3d 1037, 1045 (Wash.

2 DOE v. SEATTLE POLICE DEPT.
Statement of A
LITO, J.
2025). The fourth applicant went to the U. S. Capitol, but
it was not found that he engaged in any illegal or unprofes-
sional conduct, such as trespassing in restricted areas.
Ibid. The applicants claim—and respondents do not con-
test—that during the investigation they were asked, on
threat of losing their jobs, about their political viewpoints
and motivations. Application 5–6, 18.* The applicants ask
only that their names be redacted from those investigatory
records if they are released. Id., at 6.
We have held that the First Amendment provides a meas-
ure of protection for the right to engage in anonymous po-
litical expression. See, e.g., Talley v. California, 362 U. S.
60, 64 (1960); Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of N. Y., Inc.
v. Village of Stratton, 536 U. S. 150, 166–167 (2002). The
applicants contend that this right will be violated if both
their identities and their responses to questions on sensi-
tive subjects are revealed.
The Washington Supreme Court sidestepped this argu-
ment. It reasoned that the applicants had no protected
right regarding the fact that they attended public events in
Washington on January 6 because they failed to produce
“any evidence demonstrating they took measures to attend
the [January 6] rally anonymously.” 563 P. 3d, at 1053.
But that reasoning ignores the fact that the officers chal-
lenge the disclosure of their responses to investigatory
questions, not merely the fact of their presence in Washing-
ton, D. C.
Our denial of review in this case should not be taken as
——————
*According to the applicants, they were asked: “Why did they attend
the January 6th Rally?” “Who did they plan to attend the Rally with?”
“Were they at [the] January 6th Rally to articulate their political views?”
“Were they showing support for a political group by attending the Janu-
ary 6th Rally?” Were they affiliated with any political groups?” “What
were their impressions of, and reactions to, the content of the January
6th Rally?” “Why was their mere attendance at the January 6th Rally
professional conduct?” Application 18.

3 Cite as: 605 U. S. ____ (2025)
Statement of A
LITO, J.
manifesting any degree of support for the proposition that
the disclosure at issue in this case is consistent with the
First Amendment.