well your argument this morning case twelve ten thirty eight united states versus apple straw which thank you mr chief justice and may it please the court a section thirteen eighty two makes it a misdemeanor for a person to reenter a military base after having been ordered not to do so by the commanding officer of the ninth circuit here added another requirement for conviction which is that the defendant must be found in a place that as a matter of real property law is within the exclusive possession of the united states well i think i would say a couple things about those sources justice ginsburg first of all the they reflect essentially conservative legal advice that recognizes that some courts have made a reference to such a requirement and so the responsible thing to do if you're in a jag rendering an opinion on what the right way to structural e c is or whether a particular place is in fact covered by thirteen eighty two is to confirm that yes this would meet the criteria that the cour create rights it's not intended to bind the department of justice or otherwise modify the meanings of criminal statutes it's simply a reference guide and it is a reference guide that certainly would be accurate in some circuits we think in correct and that's what of course th is now in a position to resolve the disagreement between the courts on that on that subject so that what respondent does argue because of course respondent isn't even defending that requirement here is is that  and what the case then comes down to i guess is that vandenberg air force base is not a military installation now we think it is and we think all of that is and the reason for that is that the statute refers comprehensively to a long list of places reservation for host arsenal yard station installation that covers the range of places that are subject to military command and then berg is of course a place that's subject to military command context as the extent of the commanding officers jurisdiction and so what the way things are set up is that the civilian leadership in the department of defense defines bases and then the military commanders who are appointed by the president then through appointing subordinate commands will have units assigned to particular bases in the commanding officer of the unit will be the commanding officer of the base to which the unit as a side will some military installations are located in very low rural areas now suppose you have an installation in such a place and there are buildings and facilities that you can see in one part of its territory but there's a lot of open there a lot of open fields around it would and suppose there is it's not post it would it would that still be a military installation if somebody goes on that it would although let me say a few things about that your description actually is pretty apt as to vandenberg itself it's in a rural area there are large areas of what you i think actually describe as kind of open fields that are there precisely to serve as a kind of a buffer zone around these enormous rocket respect we refer to it i think in artfully in our brief is actually that the defendant would have knowledge i think it's more the defendant needs to be on notice and like ascertaining the extent of any geographic place the place to look for starters is a map or if you look at a if you it nowadays you go on the internet you pull up any map it will show you the area marked off as vandenberg air force base in a map presumably reflects who owns the property and you yourself say that that's not what's significant task but we're suggesting is that the coverage of thirteen navy too should be coextensive with the commanders of four which is essentially as a sort of suggest in the nature of a jurisdictional test where does the commanders regulatory enough or and barmen authority extend to as a matter of minutes very law which should be backed up by misdemeanor sanction importunity too but i'm not sure that i can that i follow that completely when i look at the list of items mentioned in the statute reservation host for arsenal yard station or installation i don't think of a command separate from operational control or being run by and used by the military each of those terms has an operational quality to it that mere ownership which i equate with command doesn't it makes no sense in answer to justice is question to say you need notice unless that facility has a military flavor to it that someone could know about in you talk about this particular camp but you've got a whole green line around it to tell people which sections you are actually considering the ca and he was found outside of that green area you've got a public school a public highway i'm not quite sure how you can keep a person off of lands that the military is not using in its operations well i i guess just to take the last point there i would disagree with the premise the military is not using these lands in their operations i mean to take to take one example there will be there's a launch tomorrow at  and the other highway that's kind of indistinguishable from my way one for these purposes is going to be closed down because it's in the area or that's dangerous because it's in these so you take the rods down roads for parades you closed  areas for other public needs certainly but i would be clear that the reason that is being closed down is because the commanding officer at vandenberg has determined that that property which is owned by the united states to exercise control over the easement property that precisely so justice kennedy and i think that gets to the bigger picture point here which is that it would be a very odd result to say that a that a military commander has to maximally inconvenience the precisely because the court thought to resolve flour on the constitutional grounds that there was no question there that it was covered by thirteen eighty two notwithstanding the fact that it is that it could be described as a public  property that was under the command of the commanding officer at fort sam houston in that in that case and so the court went to the constitutional question i'm happy to talk here for the court's interested about the constitutional differences between this case and flower but  does so does strongly imply that coverage of thirteen eighty two which the court would ordinarily address first before reaching the constitutional question wasn't in doubt there nor was it in doubt in any of the cases that this court has decided under  two each of which has involved a military installation that is to some greater or lesser extent in some places or other open to the public to respond in this case didn't want to protest he just wanted to take a drive up to santa barbara are i don't know maybe it's i don't know if it's not illegal to walk in southern california maybe he wanted to walk along the pacific coast highway would he keep would he committed misdemeanor by doing that so his the terms of his barmen order and the ordinary terms on which barman orders are issued at that phantom burke is that there's an exception carved out for him to traverse along the east mint which again is in the nature of a concession to public convenience which it seems quite unfair to sort of order yes it's on page sixty four of the joint appendix and it's in the middle of paragraph two hundred sixty four it says effective immediately ordered not to enter onto the annenberg air force base except to traverse meaning to travel stores or any other facilities that the public's invited to that's that's correct but of course there's a reason for that which is that he has been individually identified as posing a threat to the order and security of the base i mean i would point out he wouldn't severe ones so we think of this as being sort of a first line of defense if they are there are no sanctions for trespassing upon federal property that is not a military base just as absolutely there are there is there's a statute like that for the national park service there's a statute like that for the bureau of land management there's a statute like that for the for the forest service do you think mr hall which that there is any point at which a military installation can lose its character as such i mean i'll give you an example suppose you know that in this in this base area the government the military decided to allow for private condo buildings and six restaurants and three movie theaters and it really just turned into a regular old town and and it entered into agreements whereby all the police and was being done by local law enforcement officers around it then by the military is there any point at which it just becomes too much not like a military base where you lose the ability to do this even though it's under the formal command of a military officer but i think if it's still under the formal command of the military officer in the military officers and power to issue regulations months which this court has long recognized is the necessary can commandant of the functioning of a military installation then no it continues i assume it would be contrary to to his orders commander's command authority the commander does respond to dangerous weapons or drugs being brought there and that's necessary it's right to get what happens for example at the school if there is an assault on school premises who deals with it in the school in the school premises i believe i don't want to be quite certain about this but i believe that the well certainly the elementary school  and i believe also the middle school is within the area that is within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the united states it's been ceded to the united states so the the proper response county police force or is it no if we're talking about an area that's under the exclusive federal jurisdiction that the military the military police or security forces as there are now because they are now called are not empowered to make a s in that formal sense they can they can detain so that law enforcement officers who are empowered to make arrests can then respond so for example if you have been the more common things a traffic stop may be on one of the roads off the highway or something like that they will need to detain and wait for an appropriate response appropriate appropriate law enforcement official to respond so again there is somewhat of a of a different situation obtains on the highway because there there is authority for the county police or the county sheriff for example to respond so there's a different status there but then i guess i'm just wondering with respect to each of these places i mean the highway the school the amtrak station who's actually in control when something goes wrong in these places well that will let me back off the amtrak station because we don't think the amtrak stations on  military command at all if i can explain why in the other places it's often the case that the first response will be by the security forces because they are in the area and they will be patrolling the security forces meaning the military military now they will do  military personnel actively patrol this entire area yes yes the they amtrak station i should say though is is different because they're the station and the tracks that actually run to and from the station are actually on a narrow strip of land that is owned in fee by railroad it is it is not owned by united states it's not under air force department administration it's not part of the military commanders command authority there so that that part's not covered so in the situation of you know somebody asked well can somebody go to the train station and take a train if they've been barred well yes they're allowed to travel on the highway that goes there and they're allowed to waive the train station and go and that arrange ment obviously has been determined by the the appropriate officials to be sufficient to protect the military's interest if it if it worked i imagine we would see a different arrangement but there combinations have been made i think the larger point here though that if the commanding officer has the authority to issue these regulations and has the authority to issue these barman's it seems across the whole area which i think is not really subject to dispute here the committee that is justice kennedy points out easement says he can yes yes it would be in in the in the same way that the commanding officer can determine that any particular use of the highway is inconsistent with the military needs that's why the reservation is in there precisely to to to reservists and and if he and the odd result here under respondents reading because of course respondents reading turns on the coverage of what military installation means and that covers the first paragraph of section thirty two as well which deals with the with enforcing regulations the oddity of his reading is that if a truck then did drive on the highway bringing the flammable materials the truck would be in violation of the regulation but it's sort of a sound of one hand clapping because it wouldn't actually be a misdemeanor because the statute wouldn't cover that part of the commander's command area that in congruity is very strange we wouldn't say say in the national parks context if the park service has a rule that says you can't feed the grizzly bears means you can't feed the grizzly bears anywhere in the park it doesn't mean yeah you're not supposed to but it would be a misdemeanor if you feed them on the road but you can't feed them off the road and it is a misdemeanor and that's that's essentially the regime that respondent suggests this statute mr holder can i ask you this which is this question stimulated by what justice kagan asked is it my understanding is that if you look at how many military reservations you may need a very detailed map to figure out and a crime is committed someplace on there or other federal lands you may need a very detailed map to determine whether criminal jurisdiction over that particular offense is exclusively federal or federal and concurrent now and i would assume the fact would be true of a military base that is completely sealed off to the public that's i think so do you have stamina in the ninth circuit's holding to be based on access or to be based on jurisdiction o crimes that are committed there no i understand it to be based on neither of those things i understand it to be based on a real property analysis which says at this point where respondent was found there is an easement so there is a real property interest that is held by someone other than the united states therefore the united states does not exclusively possess it that it wouldn't respond it's here year no it's not respondents theory here but if i might just say one word about the absurdities the kind of absurdities that the night circuits position seems like it might lead to is that it doesn't seem like it's  limited to easements i mean respond of course as we know wasn't using the easement for its purpose so it's just sort of a coincidence he's also on the easement and so on that i took its approach maybe there's a utility easement or maybe there's a subsurface mineral rights that have with them an entry in the grass rights or something and i guess that also would defeat on the ninth circuit's approach the application of thirteen eighty two which seems very strange well there may be supposed properties at least i don't know whether this actually ever occurs but constitution says that the state has to cede to the united states that jurisdiction so the state has ceded to the united states that jurisdiction over over the base the united states i believe it's correct the united states retro ceded that jurisdiction back to the state as to the highways so that highway patrol officers could could could go along those could go along the highways but that's really a separate issue from what's presented here because situation where the united states leases property and and places it under military jurisdiction and gives it to a military commander there certainly are such places and that's why an ownership test isn't quite right i kagan is sort of right about ninety five percent of the time because it's usually true that united states is going to want to own the places that it puts under military command but it's not perfect in the leasing context it's also it's also problematic in the situation that comes up in some of the courts of appeals cases regarding the coast guard or naval security zones which are designated waters adjacent to a base that are a pertinence to the commanders inclusive yes i think that's correct too because there are certainly property that the united states owns plenty of prop most property the united states owns isn't under military command and so it's not just federal ownership it's it although i would i would point out that with respect to these other statutes that deal with other agencies of the government that administer lands it is generally true i can't say that it's exclusively it's true across the board but it's generally true that there's a statute something like this one that corresponds to the regulatory authority of a land management agency so and again we wouldn't punch holes in the misdemeanor sanctions that back up those other land management agencies authorities so i don't see why we like it was probably drawn to guide road crews in the parts of the road they should be resurfacing because one of the terms of the easements is that california is responsible for maintaining the road and so when the california partner transportation road comes out to repave it or something they need to know well how how wide how far are we supposed to go so there's there's this green line or some other green line scattered on other places of the base in various shades of being worn down but there i think they can be taken to demarcate the extent of the easement so so on the ninth circuit's approach the green line is significant for that reason because it tells you which side is which i would point out that this particular place does just lie within a road that is miles inside the actual perimeter outer perimeter of the base it's a couple miles as the crow flies and several miles as you travel up the road so it's not as if it's sort of lies out bar order but that one that was a first amendment case and the and the problem there was that he was barred for a peaceful protest the first time around and that's not that's not this case  dispute in flour that thirty two would apply because the street within the military base but to go to justice kennedy's question this clinton albertine it was very clear that what flower means is that when there is a fully open public  is a right to use it for speech activity as well that is a first amendment case but let's concentrate first on the argument you make and of the statute it seems to me that the statute should be construed according to normal rules  and this goes owner of the subservient easement the easement holder cannot overburden that easement he cannot i've gone an easement on the back of my property for the utility company they can't hold a picnic there they can't do that yes john we're burdening the movement and this is standard stuff and it's right in these mini agreement with the city of santa barbara that the police that the military commander can make reasonable regulations  the condition paragraph or these micrograph or says there can be rules and regulations of the guard to the right of those rules and regulations must be consistent with the constitution for example the commander couldn't exclude african americans from that route constitutional doubt that's why the first amendment comes out also of course is this court repeatedly is held responded grace any issue that was raised to defend the judgment which is also why the first minutes here but your honor i'm going to raise it but we don't have to listen to it  imagine a million as you can too so if not all of those would involve first amendment anything and yet the ninth circuit would seem to say that your client could go  demonstrate as long as the utility company had an easement so how are we supposed to interpret the statute to avoid the first amendment problem without getting into an interpretation that to me would seem ridiculous your honor the question is what does the phrase military installation mean one way of defining it would be all of the property that's owned by the united states but it's just this cake and pointed out the united states  interpretation and put one of its or five of the alternative interpretation is exclusive possession and that's the one that all of the lower courts are why is the first amendment allow a person to go to the heart of the military base put on any why i want to know what your position is does the interpretation of the statute that avoids my absurd p g and e result but nonetheless does what you want which is to protect the first amendment and i think that's exactly the justice kennedy the definition here at all and it seems to me that when i read the other definitions of the statute they keep going back to that it's a function analysis and not a real property analysis because that would ensure why this particular electrical meter reading that area is still being operated by the military for a military function that's what forts your i don't know why we would read installation any differently i think if you're buying into this real property as being the defining term no your honor i'm not i completely agree with what you just sat i think it is a functional analysis here the military is there an offense perimeter around the end of bourke draw a green line with a say but the control begins on the other side of the green line is highway one that anyone can drive down there are no has the right to control the entire installation you wanted to there was a big difference between the author who already of the commanding officer with in the close confines of the base and outside the base for example civilians cannot be prosecuted for what they're doing on that public road that they're under the memorandum of understanding the california highway patrol was it because of the commanding officer agreed to that because that's the term of the of the easement yes memorandum of understanding the commanding officer has ceded control over that public road to the highway patrol the united states wants it both ways they want the benefits of having an easement there in the sense that the state is responsible maintaining the about the state is liable for any harms on the red state enforces crimes on the road but they also want to claim that they have all of the control of that public road is the word within the base are entitled to have it both ways it's their base and if that's the deal you know take it or leave it state we will give you those easement but the terms are what we have said what's wrong with that but your honor they shouldn't have it both ways once they've created a public road once they've created doesn't it outside the record i just want to give you a chance to respond to that sure we know that the united states treats its easement as big its control is beginning with in the green line area so for example when mr oppal crossed the green line previously that was the place that which was convicted for trespass in other cases that are cited in both of our brave lines on the road were taken as defining the area were military dress addiction begins so the six circuits mcqua case it was a white line in the military said once somebody crossed the white line that's where section thirteen eighty two begin and if if your colleague is correct that the green line marked the edge of the easement it would be entirely proper not to not to arrest him for violating the base until he left the easement that is when he crossed the green line it has nothing to do to issue the barman to order the say notwithstanding that mr apple had not crossed the green line that he just can't be here and he's excluded then why don't they have sufficient authority to prevent him from reentering in your honor there is a difference between the and the area within the green line it's what i was saying to justice kagan is the reason why the barman orders were permissible is he crossed the green line but you are saying that if he had not crossed the green line he could not have been excluded that's correct and you're saying that the military cannot exclude any person from any of this area outside the green line that's got thirteen eighty two only applies to that which adopts the exclusive possession past so i do believe it's just a sudden i said it was a functional reason for this it is the difference between the public road and the area so you're defending the circuit we are very much a at the risk of repetition the reason i'm asking this question is the record is not developed i looked at the google maps it looked to me like you syria is sort of a suburban house with a lawn in front of it and drive along the street and you suspect that the street may be long to the city a little way up the lawn but beyond that it probably belongs to the homeowner and when you try to see where does the green line cross that grassy area you can easily tell and it may be just a foot or two so it may have been inconceivable that your client didn't cross the green line or maybe he didn't i don't know so therefore you are back to a more basic test and you say we agree with the ninth circuit that if they do not have exclusive control the military can't enforce this so that statute but what do we do which was my question about instances where the military does not have exclusive control but the reason it doesn't has nothing to do with roads nothing to do with green lines has to do with thousands of other easements that have nothing to do with this case therefore i'm pressing you to get a definition of this statute that will serve your hands without getting into all these other kinds of easements and i think the functional approach that just the sort of i suggested that what exactly that you are and i think here it is and i may put up a fence around my property and i may not put the fence white at the very edge of the property i may leave a little border between the edge of my property and the place where the fences now are you saying that i have ceded exclusive control over this area between the fence and the end of the property no in effect that's exactly the situation here and it goes to answering with just this prior began a moment ago here what you have to fully fenced perimeter about two hundred yards from that fence perimeter where there's a gate a green line is drawn on the ground in just the the other side of that green line is a designated protest sound in highway one and that's of course with these activities occurred and it was same to justice bri what they are none of that is under the exclusive possession of the government no your honor the government gets to decide the theory of exclusive possession so take the greer case is an example in greer this case emphasized that dick's even though it was distinction between the sidewalks that run outside this building and the building itself and the courts it is to those sidewalks even though they are but the supreme court it still is open for speech purposes sidewalk public roads aren't currently open i'm stalker completely confused about the task that you're asking us to to apply either if either fences are relevant or they're not relevant if they're if you can have exclusive governmental exclusive military possession of a base where there are no fences i don't really see what the significance is of the fence here that's just that's just for starters obviously the fence is significant in terms of answering the government's concerns with regard to national security i think the fence is also important to go to just a set of us point with regard to the functional approach my answer to your question is excuse me what about the portion of the base on the other side of the road easement where that where the government does have exclusive possession well what's interesting is that ok that's still part of the base but what's interesting as was pointed out yes or no i mean there is not have exclusive possession there there's a public school there for example that anyone can try to go to one of the consequences the government's interpretation of thirty two is that mr oppal had a child attending that public school he could not go pick up his child at school don't you know i or anyone else could drive and that may be very bad but is it bad because the government does not have exclusive possession of every you know when you talk about the road they've given at least not so you can say oh yeah they don't they don't have exclusive possession but the other side of the road that vast tract you're saying the government that that's not a possession test it's a purely functional test but your honor congress didn't in thirty eight to say all land owned by the military use the phrase military installation whenever that phrase has been defined it always refers to the area that is reserved to be used for military purposes the united states can draw the green line in build the fence where ever it chooses here it decided to do it on a particular place leaving but they're run by outside contractors sometimes you sink because they've given up exclusive control of the p x that they fail your test so does the utility company i don't know it's possible that military bases generate their own utilities but i presume that somewhere they don't and they have an easement to drive up and read their meters there maybe easements for repairs of certain under ground things that that supply the base that's not exclusive control so i'm not your possession so what what is your test mean it is whether the united states chooses to exercise exclusive possession of the united states for example in greer's that we are claiming to have exclusive possession over the entire area of fort dix even though there was a public route if the government wants to say everyone has the authority to drive down that route somebody has because it's been seeded by the united states for the convenience of the travelling time exactly and then the question is once the united states a seat at the  under thirteen eighty two can a person be prosecuted and once the united states a seated that easement doesn't violate the first amendment and right of this court's decision in flowers to prosecute a price i thought you just answered the question from justice sotomayor by saying no no the utility easement doesn't work because the military commander has not granted permission to anybody else to use that easement here we have a public road easement and you said that's different and my question was no it's not because the military commander has given permission to use that easement now i want to know what distinguishes the two cases when this goes to justice kennedy's question earlier if we're talking about an easement in easement that is created for a public ro really has free speech rights attached to it in fact many lower court cases have always said an easement for a public road includes the right to use it for speech purposes that's very different than an easement that exists for purposes avoid all first amendment problems there is no way to do that i disagree your honor i think that the reason that every lower court in the united states government itself the rebel military is to lose is exclusive possession is that otherwise it would raise amendment probably you know arguing that the military cannot grant and easement across a military installation for the purpose of allowing the public to drive from a point say to the south to point to the north without also granting an easement that would allow people to linger along the road and engage in first amendment activity that is that's your argument no it is i don't understand why no terry might be willing to say well fine we understand that it would be very inconvenient to make everybody drive around the installation will allow them to to drive through but we do not want people lingering here because that does create security concerns no your honor that's not my position if the government wanted to have a use it or lose it argument is that is that correct that that the government has this command and authority unless the government uses it to its full extent every day of the week it loses it well in a sense yes the sense is that the government of the arguments that the government makes is that what the military wants to do here is something very sensible it keeps tight what it needs to keep tight but it allows to be more open areas that can it doesn't have an interest in securing entirely and that's for the convenience of military personnel it's for the convenience of other people who live around the base what's wrong with that you know what's wrong with that is there's no need to exclude peaceful protesters from the public wrote in the protests in order to achieve the national security interests the government that's usually the sort of determination that's left to the military commander i can think of a lot of reasons why the commander would not want a gathering of people on the road but w be willing to let people drive through the road that's exactly right under the military commander gets to decide that but by creating a designated protests outside of that it's indicative that the military made it doesn't perceive any national security threat from allowing a gathering there well it indicates is the the barbet order does that he does see some kind of threat by allowing somebody in there who's vandalized the base in the past your honor but we've this court has never sat as a permanent fo participating in protests for a year because he vandalized the base yes rather a sentence could include that there is no doubt that there could be or if somebody was perceived here as i understand that he was barred permanently subject go right of him to apply for removal of the barman that's correct around there is the ability to appeal a borrower to the commander more than that it says you know if you want to take someone to school said first if you need medical treatment you can just go in and then it's you'd have to receive prior written approval from me the commander or my designee but if you get it so i suppose if you had a child at school he would ask and they'd give it to  was physically i don't know where that grass strip is within something without something he's all sound like first amendment relevant matter but they're also relevant to the statute they're relevant to interpret the statute to avoid constitutional doubt the relevant  barman decision no your honor we're saying is you have to interpret the words military installation there are two different interpretations or perhaps more has come out what we're saying is you have to choose the interpretation that favors the criminal defendant  just a couple points i i think the colloquy with my friend sort of shows that of taking this functional approach to where the statute applies day to day place to place is really just not going to prove workable i mean we have to member this is a misdemeanor prosecution this is not something that shouldn't tail an extremely extensive subtle inquiry that's going to vary from place to place and so i think that that shows the wisdom of what this court said in the benson case which we quoted page fifteen and sixteen of our reply brief which which explains it says that when a tract has been legally reserved for military purposes courts follow the action of the political department of the government and will mock enquire what the actual uses to which any portion of the reserve is temporarily put as for the ninth circuit's approach which is this sort of real estate based analysis i think there's been a number of hypotheticals offered that show why that's going to produce some  borderline absurd or entirely absurd results and so that's why we come back to again respecting the the decision to place a to place the installation under military command in that section thirteen eighty two provides the sanction to enforce the orders entered pursuant to that lawful command i might say one word about the green line and it's relevance my friend says that it is sort of the the all the threshold across which  two applies or doesn't apply the relevance in a thirteen eighty two prosecution of the green line comes in a prosecution under the first paragraph for violating a regulation a joint appendix  fifty one there's the commander's order closing the base and what it says is my pursuant to my authority vandenberg air force base is a closed base general rule covering the entire command authority paragraph boundary between the closed base the generally closed base and the road which is open and so that's what ensures that someone who's driving on the road is not committing an offense against the commanders regulations if they're just an ordinary member of the public  and of course if they cross over the line then they are violating the closed place regulation if they don't have the commanders permission to cross that line so the what's different of course about respondent is that he's been barred from the base so the rules that apply to the general public don't apply to him and of course that's the very purpose of the second paragraph of section thirteen eighty two is to recognise the commanders can make individual eyes determinations that the rules that work generally for the public don't work for particular people who show themselves to be willing to vandalize government property were disobeyed the instructions to remain within the areas that they may lawfully be present and that of course is the basis for why  what's the history of this first amendment area when did the speech area come into being there's there was a settlement of litigation with the commander in the late one nine hundred eighty s it's it's in it's reproduced in the part of his reapers in the joint appendix which i guess shows a couple things in which the commander agreed that there would be a place on the base where the litigation essentially like this one basically saying that this was not under military command to be honest i'm not familiar with the particular legal contentions there but but i think what the settlement does show is that if it's the commander who's authorizing this the commander remains in charge of this of course the current protest policy which is reproduced in the joint appendix is quite clear that the commander retains authority to going to control that the time and place of the protests and of course makes clear that people who are barred can't come back and so on that point with respect to the constitutional avoidance argument i think as the chief justice pointed out it needs to be a serious constitutional doubt and i think what this court has said in virginia against hicks puts any of those doubts to rest the court said in that in that case  first amendment permits quote the punishment of a person who has pursuant to lawful regulation been banned from a public park so i think a foreshore a military base after vandalizing it and who ignores that in order to take part in a political demonstration the court has said so the court i think is already settled this thank you thank you council cases submitted