Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/104869/secretary-navy-vs-huff
Timestamp: 2017-06-22 23:41:08
Document Index: 127634004

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1034', '§ 1034', '§ 1034', '§ 1034', '§ 1034', '§ 1034', '§ 2604', '§ 2604', 'Art. 138', '§ 938']

Secretary of Navy Vs Huff - Citation 104869 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Save as PDF Add a Tag Add a Note Semantics Visualize Secretary of Navy Vs. Huff - Court Judgment	LegalCrystal Citationlegalcrystal.com/104869CourtUS Supreme CourtDecided OnJan-21-1980Case Number444 U.S. 453AppellantSecretary of NavyRespondentHuffExcerpt:.....states marine corps air station in iwakuni, japan. on separate occasions, each of them sought the base commander's permission to circulate a petition addressed to a member of congress. the petitions dealt with the use of military forces in labor disputes within the united states, amnesty for men who resisted the draft or deserted the armed forces during the vietnam war, and united states support for the government of south korea. the first two requests proposed circulation within the base; the last proposed circulation both within and without the base. the commander denied the first two requests, but he allowed the petition about south korea to circulate within the base.
on another occasion, huff and falatine each asked to distribute a leaflet annotating the declaration of..... Judgment:
Secretary of Navy v. Huff - 444 U.S. 453 (1980)
Navy and Marine Corps regulations which require military personnel on an overseas base to obtain command approval before circulating petitions do not, insofar as they affect the circulation within a base of petitions addressed to Members of Congress, violate 10 U.S.C. § 1034, which provides that
Congress enacted § 1034 to ensure that an individual member of the Armed Forces could write to his elected representatives without sending his communication through official channels. Permitting an individual member of the Armed Forces to submit a petition directly to any Member of Congress serves the purpose of § 1034 without unnecessarily endangering a commander's ability to preserve morale and good order among his troops. Thus, the statute does not invalidate regulations such as those involved here.
Brown v. Glines, ante
declaratory and injunctive relief against future enforcement of four Navy and Marine Corps regulations. [
] Each regulation provides, in relevant part, that members of the Marine Corps shall not
"originate, sign, distribute, or promulgate petitions, publications, . . . or other . . . written material . . . on any military installation on duty or in uniform, or anywhere within a foreign country irrespective of uniform or duty status, unless prior command approval is obtained. [
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court declared the regulations invalid with respect to materials distributed within the base during off-duty hours and away from restricted or work areas. The court upheld the regulations with respect to distributions outside the base. In that situation, the court concluded, command approval was necessary to prevent political activity in violation of the Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Japan. [
] 413 F.Supp. 863 (1976). The petitioners appealed, but the respondents did not cross-appeal. [
We granted certiorari to consider whether the challenged regulations, as they affect the circulation of petitions within a military base, violate 10 U.S.C. § 1034. 440 U.S. 957 (1979). [
, decided today, we concluded that
444 U. S. 359
. Nothing in the legislative history suggests that Congress intended to authorize the unrestricted circulation of petitions within a military base. Indeed, both Congress and this Court have determined that
444 U. S. 360
. Thus, in construing statutes that affect such matters, we must not limit a commander's authority more than the legislative purpose requires. Permitting an individual member of the Armed Services to submit a petition directly to any Member of Congress serves the purpose of § 1034 without unnecessarily endangering a commander's ability to preserve morale and good order among his troops. In
therefore, we held that § 1034 does not invalidate regulations requiring members of the Armed Forces to secure command approval before circulating petitions within a military base.
[For dissenting opinion of MR JUSTICE BRENNAN,
444 U. S. 361
MR JUSTICE STEWART and MR. JUSTICE STEVENS dissent. For the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in
444 U. S. 374
444 U. S. 378
, they would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case.
The respondents also sought a judgment expunging Falatine's arrest record, invalidating Huff's conviction, and restoring to Huff all benefits denied as the result of his conviction.
at 865. Those claims, however, are no longer part of the case.
444 U. S. 456
, and n. 4.
Fleet Marine Force Pacific Order 5370.3, Ś 3(b) (1974). The full subparagraph reads:
The other three regulations, although different in geographic scope, use substantially identical language.
Pacific Fleet Instruction 5440.3C, § 2604.2(2) (1974); First Marine Aircraft Wing Order 5370.1B, Ś 5(a)(2) (1974); Iwakuni Marine Corps Air Station Order 5370.3A, Ś 5(a)(2) (1973).
"(2) Present a clear danger to the loyalty, discipline, morale, or safety to [
] personnel of his command; or,"
Fleet Marine Force Pacific Order 5370.3, Ś 4(a) (1974).
Pacific Fleet Instruction 5440.3C, § 2604.2(4) (1974); First Marine Aircraft Wing Order 5370.1B, Ś 6(c) (1974); Iwakuni Marine Corps Air Station Order 5370.3A, Ś 5(c) (1973). The respondents' complaint did not challenge these standards, App. 5-7, and the Court of Appeals did not review them, 188 U.S.App.D.C. 26, 32-33, 575 F.2d 907, 913-914 (1978). Thus, the only issue before us is the validity of the prior approval requirement.
At oral argument, the respondents also contended that regulations requiring members of the Armed Forces to secure command approval before circulating petitions within a military base violate the First Amendment. Tr. of Oral Arg. 30. Our decision today in
, sustains the facial validity of this type of regulation and, therefore, disposes of respondents' First Amendment contention.
We have had no occasion, either in
or in this case, to consider a claim that regulations were misapplied in a particular instance.
444 U. S. 357
. We have noted, however, that regulations in each Armed Service were promulgated under a Department of Defense directive that "advises commanders to preserve servicemen's
right of expression . . . to the maximum extent possible, consistent with good order and discipline and the national security.'"
444 U. S. 355
. A member of the service who thinks that his commander has misapplied the regulations can seek remedies within the service.
Uniform Code of Military Justice, Art. 138, 10 U.S.C. § 938. Furthermore, the federal courts are open to assure that, in applying the regulations, commanders do not abuse the discretion necessarily vested in them.