The words “harangue” and “oratory” may not roll off the tongue the way they used to, a federal appeals court acknowledged Friday. But their meanings are clear enough to let anyone know that they cannot interrupt the proceedings of the Supreme Court by making speeches.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that a lower court was wrong to find the words so vague as to cast doubt on a law that outlaws protests at the Supreme Court.

[Court says no protests on Supreme Court’s plaza]

At issue is a decades-old statute that states, “It is unlawful to discharge a firearm, firework or explosive, set fire to a combustible, make a harangue or oration, or utter loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court building or grounds.”

Judge Janice Rogers Brown, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, said that in context the wording was clear enough that a group of protesters at an April 1, 2015, oral argument should have known that they could not stand up and start making statements.

“It is true, as their dictionary definitions show, that ‘harangue’ and ‘oration’ can cover different facets of public speeches — ‘orations’ can include formal speeches, while ‘harangues’ can include angry or vehement speeches,” Brown wrote. “But we are interpreting a statute, not restating a dictionary.”

At the 2015 incident, a string of protesters rose to speak after the courtroom full of spectators had been admonished to remain silent as the oral argument proceeded.

“We rise to demand democracy,” said Belinda Rodriguez. After she was removed, Matthew Kresling stood up: “Money is not speech. One person, one vote!” Another demanded the court overturn its campaign finance decision in Citizens United v. FEC.

They were charged with violating the statute against protests in the Supreme Court building, but last year U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper agreed with them that the language about harangues and oratory was unconstitutionally vague.

“Congress has not defined these words, nor has their meaning ‘evolved over the years from repeated adjudications,’ ” Cooper wrote. (But he rejected the same vagueness challenge to the word “loud.”)

In Friday’s ruling, however, Brown said the meaning was clear: “By employing two words that cover public speeches of myriad forms within a statute focused on the Supreme Court’s building and grounds, Congress’s use of ‘harangue’ and ‘oration’ indicates these terms are meant to cover any form of public speeches that tend to disrupt the Supreme Court’s operations.”

She was joined in the decision by U.S. circuit judges Sri Srinivasan and Stephen F. Williams.

Those latter two judges were also on a unanimous D.C. Circuit panel last year that upheld a related law that restricted protesters from the Supreme Court’s plaza. Demonstrations are allowed on the sidewalks that surround the court.