Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/211221509/United-States-v-Apel
Timestamp: 2019-03-22 21:19:29
Document Index: 326073194

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1382', '§1382', '§1382', '§1382', '§1382', '§1382', '§1382', '§1382', '§1382', '§809', '§1382', '§809', '§1382', '§1382', '§ 809', '§1382', '§ 797', 'in fine', '§1382', '§1382', '§1382', '§1382', '§1382', '§1382', '§2687', '§1382', '§1382', '§809', '§2801', '§1382', '§1382', '§1', '§797', '§809', '§809', '§1382', '§1382', '§1382', '§1382', '§1382', '§1382', '§1382']

United States v. Apel | Supreme Court Of The United States | Judge Advocate General's Corps
Uploaded by FD Shah
U.S. Supreme Court opinion in United States v. Apel
United States v. Bernard R. Bowser, 497 F.2d 1017, 4th Cir. (1974)
D.C. Cases
Bay Shore Union Free School District, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Thomas Kain, on Behalf of His Son, Ryan Kain, Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellee. Docket No. 06-0601-Cv, 485 F.3d 730, 2d Cir. (2007)
Packwood v. Senate Select Committee on Ethics. No. A-704, 510 U.S. 1319 (1994)
Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Edward Sadlowski, Intervenor Anthony Tomko, Intervenor v. United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio-Clc (District 15) (District 31) Edward Sadlowski, Intervenor Above Named, and the Following Counsel for Sadlowski: Joseph F. Rauh, Jr., Leon Despres, Kenneth J. Yablonski and Judith Schneider, 666 F.2d 845, 3rd Cir. (1981)
Isbrandtsen Tankers, Inc. v. President of India, Represented by the Director General of the India Supplymission, 446 F.2d 1198, 2d Cir. (1971)
William R. Staats Co. v. Security Trust and Sav. Bank, 243 U.S. 121 (1917)
Peter Demby v. Jacqueline Wexler, Individually and as President of Hunter College, and Kathryn Hopwood, Individually and as Dean of Students of Hunter College, and the New York City Board of Higher Education, 436 F.2d 570, 2d Cir. (1970)
MF clase7 280910
Propuesta Técnica Choferes Repsol 2014 - 17112014
Convenio Marco Con Municipio
Best Practice SharePoint Intranets - Managing documents and collaboration with SharePoint 2010
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 MBA PPT
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 12–1038. Argued December 4, 2013—Decided February 26, 2014 Vandenberg Air Force Base has been designated a “closed base,” meaning that civilians may not enter without express permission. The Air Force has granted an easement over two areas of the Base, with the result that two public highways traverse the Base. Adjacent to one of those highways is an area that the Government has designated for peaceful protests. The Base commander has enacted several restrictions to control the protest area and has issued an advisory stating that anyone who fails to adhere to the protest area policies may be barred from entering the Base. Petitioner Apel was barred from the Base for trespassing and vandalism, but continued to enter the protest area. A Magistrate Judge convicted him of violating 18 U. S. C. §1382, which makes it a crime to reenter a “military. . . installation” after having been ordered not to do so “by any officer or person in command.” On appeal, the Federal District Court rejected Apel’s defense that §1382 does not apply to the designated protest area. The Ninth Circuit reversed. It held that because the easement through Vandenberg deprived the Government of exclusive possession, §1382 did not cover the portion of the Base where Apel’s protest occurred. Held: A “military. . . installation” for purposes of §1382 encompasses the commanding officer’s area of responsibility, and it includes Vandenberg’s highways and protest area. Pp. 6–14. (a) Contrary to Apel’s argument, §1382 does not require exclusive possession and control. The statute is written broadly to apply to many different kinds of military places, and nothing in its text defines those places in terms of the access granted to the public or the nature of the Government’s possessory interest. See United States v. Albertini, 472 U. S. 675, 682. Nor have military places been defined
filed a concurring opinion. (c) Apel’s argument that the statute was unconstitutional as applied was not reached by the Ninth Circuit and. in which SOTOMAYOR. those opinions are nonbinding. 94 U. BURG.. 7–10. §1382 does not require base commanders to make continuous. 13. delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. which defined the term “military station” as a place “where military duty is performed or military protection afforded. 222. but this argument assumes the conclusion. Pp. 3d 1202. raise difficult questions for judges. thus.2 UNITED STATES v. Apel’s further contention that the highways and protest area are uncontrolled spaces where military operations are not performed is contrary to the record: The Base commander has enacted rules to restrict the manner of protests in the designated area and has publicly stated that persons barred from Vandenberg may not enter the Base to protest. 219. is not addressed here. P..” And while some Executive Branch documents have said that §1382 requires exclusive possession.. filed a concurring opinion. 10–13. lest they lose authority to exclude certain individuals. S. joined. and the Base commander has occasionally closed the highways to the public for security purposes or when conducting a military launch. The United States has placed the entire Vandenberg property under the administration of the Air Force. The Air Force’s choice to secure a portion of the Base more closely does not alter its boundaries or diminish its commander’s jurisdiction. The common feature of the places described in §1382 is that they have defined boundaries and are subject to the command authority of a military officer. (b) Section 1382 applies to any place with a defined boundary that is under the command of a military officer. 676 F. APEL Syllabus historically as land withdrawn from public use. Pp. ROBERTS. and discourage commanders from opening portions of their bases for public convenience. Phisterer. and this Court has never held that the Government’s reading of a criminal statute is entitled to any deference. GINSJ. ALITO. J. uninterrupted use of a place within their jurisdiction. the easement itself reserves to the Base commander the authority to restrict access to the entire Base when necessary and reserves to the United States rights of way for all purposes. . In any event. Apel contends that the highways and protest area are outside the Base because they lie outside fenced areas on the Base. vacated and remanded.. J. the District Court found that the Government exercises substantial control over the protest area. J. Such a use-it-or-lose-it rule would frustrate the administration of military facilities. This conclusion is confirmed by United States v. C.
Memorandum for the General Public Re: Closed Base. see also 32 CFR . It is the site of sensitive missile and space launch facilities. 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. Commander (Oct. . ____ (2014) Opinion of the Court NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. 2008). Federal law makes it a crime to reenter a “military . The question presented is whether a portion of an Air Force base that contains a designated protest area and an easement for a public road qualifies as part of a “military installation. Washington. 2014] CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.Cite as: 571 U. §1382. 12–1038 _________________ UNITED STATES. JOHN DENNIS APEL ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT [February 26. approximately 170 miles northwest of Los Angeles. App. 23. The commander of Vandenberg has designated it a “closed base. .” meaning that civilians may not enter without express permission. C. of any typographical or other formal errors. S. The Base sits on land owned by the United States and administered by the Department of the Air Force. 51.” I A Vandenberg Air Force Base is located in central California. 20543. near the coast. Supreme Court of the United States. C. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions.” 18 U. PETITIONER v. from David J. installation” after having been ordered not to do so “by any officer or person in command. S. D. Buck.
the Air Force has granted to the County of Santa Barbara “an easement for a rightof-way for a road or street” over two areas within Vandenberg.2(b) (2013) (“Each [Air Force] commander is authorized to grant or deny access to their installations. and with California Boulevard. 36. A short way down California . Highway 246 runs through the southern part of the Base and allows access to a beach and a train station on Vandenberg’s western edge. The State of California maintains and polices these highways as it does other state roads. Letter from Governor Edmund G. In the west corner there is a visitors’ center and a public bus stop. which continues running northwest. 40. Pursuant to that easement. 20. Easement for Road or Street No. at 37. 1962). There Highway 1 intersects with Lompoc Casmalia Road.. two state roads traverse the Base. APEL Opinion of the Court §809a. and to exclude or remove persons whose presence is unauthorized”). Brown. Although the Base is closed. The easement instrument states that use of the roads “shall be subject to such rules and regulations as [the Base commander] may prescribe from time to time in order to properly protect the interests of the United States. 1981). 35. Department of the Air Force. highway purposes.2 UNITED STATES v.” Id. In the east corner of this intersection there is a middle school. Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (July 21. . . except that its jurisdiction is merely “concurrent” with that of the Federal Government. which runs southwest.. Highway 1 runs northwest several miles inside Vandenberg until it turns northeast at a 90 degree angle. The United States also “reserves to itself rights-of-way for all purposes” that would not create “unnecessary interference with . App. Zengerle. App. Jr. DA–04–353–ENG–8284 (Aug. App. Highway 1 (the Pacific Coast Highway) runs through the eastern part of the Base and provides a route between the towns of Santa Maria and Lompoc. to Joseph C. As relevant to this case.” Easement.
and “[a]ctivities other than peaceful protests in this area are not permitted and are specifically prohibited. 52–53. installation commanders may deny access to the installation through the use of a barment order”). In the south corner of the intersection is an area that has been designated by the Federal Government for peaceful protests.Cite as: 571 U. [§]797. Commander (Oct.” U. at 55.” Id. A public advisory explains other rules for the protest area: demonstrations “must be coordinated and scheduled with [B]ase Public Affairs and [Base] Security Forces at least two (2) weeks in advance”. Buck. and Lompoc Casmalia Road mark the boundaries of the protest area. infra (maps from record). 2008). The Base commander has enacted several restrictions to control the protest area. C. 23. including access to roadway easements for purposes other than traversing by vehicle through the installation. Memorandum for the General Public Re: Limited Permission for Peaceful Protest Activity Policy. there is no exception to the . C. See Appendix.5 (“Under the authority of 50 U. And for any person who is “currently barred from Vandenberg AFB. §1382]”. from David J. that anyone who fails to adhere to these policies may “receive an official letter barring you from entering Vandenberg. Those areas are surrounded by a fence and entered by a security checkpoint. a temporary fence. consistent with federal regulations. A painted green line on the pavement. The advisory states. 57–58. see also 32 CFR §809a. S. Protest Advisory.” Ibid. ____ (2014) Opinion of the Court 3 Boulevard is the main entrance to the operational areas of the Base where military personnel live and work. including reserving the authority “for any reason” to withdraw permission to protest and “retain[ing] authority and control over who may access the installation. S. S. App. Highway 1. Air Force Fact Sheet. S.. “[a]nyone failing to vacate installation property upon advisement from Security Forces will be cited for trespass pursuant to [18 U. App.
this time permanently. The only exception to the barment was limited permission from the Base commander for Apel to “ ‘traverse’. . You are not authorized to deviate from these paved roadways onto [Vandenberg] property. Apel returned to Vandenberg to protest. 54. 63–65.” Ibid. Apel Re: Barment Order (Oct. C. .4 UNITED STATES v. When he trespassed again and was convicted. at 64. . 2007). unless he followed specified procedures “to modify or revoke” the order. meaning to travel . was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment. . If you are barred and attend a protest or are otherwise found on base. which informed him: “You continue to refuse to adhere to the rules and guidelines that have been put in place by me to protect and preserve order and to safeguard the persons . The order informed Apel that if he reentered Vandenberg in violation of the order. Memorandum for John D. In May 2007. He was convicted for these actions. Apel trespassed beyond the designated protest area and threw blood on a sign for the Base.” Id. App. . §1382]. Apel ignored the commander’s order and reentered Vandenberg several times during 2008 and 2009. he received another order barring him from Vandenberg. and was barred from the Base for three years. App. on [Highway] 246 . APEL Opinion of the Court barment permitting you to attend peaceful protest activity on Vandenberg AFB property. B John Dennis Apel is an antiwar activist who demonstrates at Vandenberg. That led the Base commander to serve Apel with an updated order. S. on [Highway] 1 and .” Protest Advisory. In March 2003. .. you will be cited and detained for a trespass violation due to the non-adherence of the barment order. he would “be subject to detention by Security Forces personnel and prosecution by civilian authorities for a violation of [18 U. 22. .
as provided in the October 22. S. The content and basis of that order is hereby incorporated by reference herein. S. the Ninth Circuit interpreted . You are again ordered not to enter onto [Vandenberg] property.Cite as: 571 U.” Memorandum for John D. The District Court rejected Apel’s defense that §1382 does not apply to the designated protest area. 2010). at 13a. App. Apel appealed to the Federal District Court for the Central District of California. for Cert. I consider your presence on this installation to be a risk and detrimental to my responsibility to protect and preserve order and to safeguard the persons and property under my jurisdiction. Each time Apel refused. § 809a. EXCEPT that your barment will be for a period of three (3) years from the date of this supplemental letter. 2007 (served Jan. and on three occasions in 2010 he reentered Vandenberg to protest in the designated area. ____ (2014) Opinion of the Court 5 and property under my jurisdiction by failing to remain in the area approved by me for peaceful demonstrations pursuant to [50] U. C.11. 22. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Based on Circuit precedent. 2007 order. Each time Vandenberg security personnel reminded him of the barment order and instructed him to leave. 14a. You cannot be expected or trusted to abide by the protest guidance rules based upon this behavior. holding that the military “has a sufficient possessory interest and exercises sufficient control over” the area. 31. F. R. The court also concluded that Apel’s conviction would not violate the First Amendment. Apel ignored this barment order too. Id.. He was cited for violating §1382 and escorted off Base property. § 797 and 32 C. holding that the statute does not apply.0–[809]a. Apel Re: Barment Order Dated Oct. 59–62. A Magistrate Judge convicted Apel and ordered him to pay a total of $355 in fines and fees. to Pet. App.
post. located on land owned by the United States and under the jurisdiction of the Air Force. for any purpose prohibited by law or lawful regulation. which a military commander has closed to the public (with limited exceptions). APEL Opinion of the Court §1382 to require the Government to prove that it has “the exclusive right of possession of the area on which the trespass allegedly occurred. We granted certiorari. station. ___ (2013). or both. or installation.” 676 F.6 UNITED STATES v. so it concluded that §1382 does not cover the portion of the Base where Apel’s protest occurred.” Apel does not dispute that he was “found within” the lawful boundaries of Vandenberg. within the jurisdiction of the United States. §1382. or Coast Guard reservation. fort. arsenal. 3d 1180 (CA9 2011)). Parker. after having been removed therefrom or ordered not to reenter by any officer or person in command or charge thereof— “Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months. S. fort. 3d 1202. yard. “within the jurisdiction of the United States. yard. II Section 1382 provides in full: “Whoever. And certainly Vandenberg would naturally be described as a “military installation”: it is an Air Force base. .” after having been “ordered not to reenter” by the Base commander. goes upon any military. 569 U. or “Whoever reenters or is found within any such reservation. and now vacate the judgment. station. The court found that the easement through Vandenberg deprived the Government of exclusive possession of the roadway. post. where military personnel conduct sensitive missile operations. naval. arsenal. 1203 (2012) (citing United States v. or installation. 651 F.
A Apel asserts that the Ninth Circuit’s exclusive possession and control requirement “derives directly from the text of §1382. does not include land subject to a roadway easement. S. Davis. Wooster. See United States v. yard.g. and dependents”). 37. S.” a civilian merchant who set up shop inside the fort and sold wares both to . Soldiers. arsenal.” Nothing in the text defines those places in terms of the access granted to the public or the nature of the Government’s possessory interest. Section 1382 is written broadly to apply to many different kinds of military places: a “reservation. ____ (2014) Opinion of the Court 7 Against this straightforward interpretation.” Brief for Respondent 23. 40–41 (Jan. which. he contends. and Settlers 64 (1987) (“The frontier forts of Texas were not simply army bases occupied solely by military personnel. and were open for access by them. fort. laborers. or at least the designated protest area. 682 (1985) (“The language of the statute does not limit §1382 to military bases where access is restricted”). or installation. Albertini. 2 Western Hist. station.. Apel contends that the listed military places have historically been defined as land withdrawn from public use. It does not. See. Q. Apel further argues that the fence enclosing Vandenberg’s operational facilities marks the real boundary of the Base and that Vandenberg’s commander lacks authority to control the rest. R. Historical sources are replete with references to military “forts” and “posts” that provided services to civilians. 1971) (describing a 19th-century post in southwestern present Wyoming which included a “sutler. Not so. e. Sutlers. 675.Cite as: 571 U. Apel insists that §1382 applies only where the military exercises exclusive possession and control. settlers. We take his arguments in turn. 472 U. 37. They were often bustling communities that attracted merchants. The Sutler at Fort Bridger. post.
Tr. more or less closely connected with arms or war is kept or is to be done. are kept or distributed. See. animate or inanimate. And that. in short. 219 (1877). To describe a place as “more or less closely connected” with military activities hardly requires that the military hold an exclusive right to the property.—where something. §2687(g)(1) (defining “military installation” as a “base . or control. “military duty” and “military protection” are synonymous with the exercise of military jurisdiction. but that they have defined boundaries and are subject to the command authority of a military officer. But Phisterer only confirms our conclusion that §1382 does not require exclusive use. S.. Rather.” Id. S. which held that the term “military station” (in a different statute) did not include a soldier’s off-base home. of Oral Arg. The common feature of the places described in §1382 is not that they are used exclusively by the military. 32 CFR §809a. not coincidentally. or other activity under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense”).g. because the Solicitor General has informed us that a military commander’s authority is frequently defined by the boundaries of a particular place: When the Department of Defense establishes a base. That makes sense. APEL Opinion of the Court soldiers and to civilians from outside the base). §2801(c)(4) (defining “military installation” as a “base . where military duty is performed or military protection afforded. .8 UNITED STATES v. C. For there we interpreted “military station” to mean “a place where troops are assembled. . e. at 222. possession. . Apel responds by invoking our decision in United States v. is precisely how the term “military installation” is used elsewhere in federal law. 6–7. 10 U. . where military stores. Phisterer. or other activity under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department”). 94 U.. military commanders assign a military unit to the base. and the commanding officer of the unit becomes the commander of the base.0 (“This part prescribes the .
Their views may reflect overly cautious legal advice based on division in the lower courts. But those opinions are not intended to be binding. See Dept..100 (2009) (“The Manual provides only internal Department of Justice guidance. and no public access whatsoever is permitted on others. military sites around the world. have said that §1382 requires exclusive possession. concurring in judgment). Some are routinely open to the public. have roads running through them that are used freely by the public. So they have. Today. ____ (2014) Opinion of the Court 9 commanders’ authority for enforcing order within or near Air Force installations under their jurisdiction and controlling entry to those installations”). does not. and may not be relied upon to create any rights. United States. S. as throughout our Nation’s history. S. there is significant variation in the ownership status of U. enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal”). Either way. we have never held that the Government’s reading of a criminal statute is entitled to any deference. others are open for specific occasions or purposes. including such well-known places as the Washington Navy Yard and the United States Air Force Academy. S. 152. others are leased. substantive or procedural. Brief for Respondent 44–47. of Justice. 177 (1990) (SCALIA. Many.Cite as: 571 U. Apel also relies on the fact that some Executive Branch documents. It is not intended to. 2 Civil Law Opinions of The Judge Advocate General. United States Air Force 1978–1983 (Preface) (opinions of the Judge Advocate General “are good starting points but should not be cited as precedence [sic] without first verifying the validity of the conclusions by independent research”). including the United States Attorneys’ Manual and opinions of the Air Force Judge Advocate General. See Crandon v. Nothing in §1382 or our history suggests that the . Or they may reflect legal error. United States Attorneys’ Manual §1–1. and that is a point in his favor. 494 U. Some are owned in fee. J.
in the designated protest area. Apel argues. The problem with this argument is that the United States has placed the entire Vandenberg property under the administration of the Air Force.2(a) (“Air Force installation commanders are responsible for protecting personnel and property under their jurisdiction”). merely because the Government has conveyed a limited right to travel through a portion of the base or to assemble in a particular area.” 50 U. Neither contention is sound. C. APEL Opinion of the Court statute does not apply to a military base under the command of the Air Force. that Vandenberg’s commander has no authority on the highways running through the Base or.10 UNITED STATES v. the Base com- . Apel tacks: He suggests that because Vandenberg’s operational facilities are surrounded by a fence and guarded by a security checkpoint. however. And pursuant to that authority. and that they are “uncontrolled” spaces where “no military operations are performed. §§797(a)(2). His arguments more or less reduce to two contentions: that the highways and protest area lie “outside the entrance to [a] closed military installation[]. to say that the highway and protest area are “outside” the Vandenberg installation is not a legal argument. B Section 1382 is most naturally read to apply to places with a defined boundary under the command of a military officer.” Brief for Respondent 22. it simply assumes the conclusion. (4). apparently.” id. administration. the Government has determined that it does not control the rest of the Base. see also 32 CFR §809a. Federal law makes the commander responsible “for the protection or security of ” “property subject to the jurisdiction. Perhaps recognizing as much. at 23. S. First. which has defined that property as an Air Force base and designated the Base commander to exercise jurisdiction.. or in the custody of the Department of Defense.
Buck Memorandum Re: Closed Base. including Highway 1.3 (“any directive issued by the commander of a military installation or facility. at 52–53. 53. In particular.. the military has “relinquished its right to exclude civilians from Highway 1. ____ (2014) Opinion of the Court 11 mander has issued an order closing the entire base to the public. at 43. he requires two weeks’ notice to schedule a protest and prohibits the distribution of pamphlets or leaflets. Instead Apel tells us that. that “the Government exercises substantial control over the designated protest area. a checkpoint. Protest Advisory. And the District Court found.” App. Apel has never disputed these facts. including. by granting an easement. Buck Memorandum Re: Protest Activity.” Brief for Respondent 36. which includes the parameters for authorized entry to or exit from a military installation. S. when necessary “to . Id. id. for Cert. App.Cite as: 571 U. 51. at 54. App. The fact that the Air Force chooses to secure a portion of the Base more closely—be it with a fence.” including the protest area.. The Base commander has also publicly stated that persons who are barred from Vandenberg—for whatever reason—may not come onto the Base to protest. 58. Id. or a painted green line—does not alter the boundaries of the Base or diminish the jurisdiction of the military commander. see also 32 CFR §809a. But the easement itself specifically reserves to Vandenberg’s commander the authority to restrict access to the entire Base. App. patrolling the area. is legally enforceable against all persons”). The Base commander “at all times has retained authority and control over who may access the installation. the record is conclusively to the contrary. and that the easement does not “permit[ ]” use by the military.. As for Apel’s claim that the protest area specifically is uncontrolled. 14a–15a. for example. to Pet. He has enacted rules to restrict the manner of protests in the designated area. after hearing testimony.
vehicular travel activity through the base. the Base commander. parcel by parcel. 8–9. to determine which have roads. S. Reply Brief 12. Moreover.” Easement. 5. Tr. In any event. The use-it-or-lose-it rule that Apel proposes would frustrate the administration of military facilities and raise difficult questions for judges. We simply do not understand how Apel can claim that “[n]othing in the easement contemplates. which have fences. lest they lose authority to exclude individuals who have vandalized military property and been determined to pose a threat to the order and security of the base. And it would discourage commanders from opening portions of their bases for the convenience of the public. who are not expert in military operations. military use or occupation. We think a much better reading of §1382 is that it reaches all property within the defined boundaries of a military place that is under the . The Government has referred us to instances when the commander of Vandenberg has closed the highways to the public for security purposes or when conducting a military launch. . or even permits. and n. persistent military purpose. we decline Apel’s invitation to require civilian judges to examine U. In sum. . 51. in an exercise of his command authority. military sites around the world.” Brief for Respondent 43. has notified the public that use of the roads is “limited to . of Oral Arg. APEL Opinion of the Court properly protect the interests of the United States. uninterrupted use of a place within their jurisdiction. App. 36.12 UNITED STATES v. App. Apel likewise offers no support for his contention that military functions do not occur on the easement highways. and which have a sufficiently important.” which does not include Apel’s protest activity.” and likewise “reserves to [the United States] rights-of-way for all purposes. there is no indication that Congress intended §1382 to require base commanders to make continuous. See Buck Memorandum Re: Closed Base. it provides for exclusive civil use and occupation.
. Martinez. Whether §1382 is unconstitutional as applied is a question we need not address. Apel also attempts to repackage his First Amendment objections as a statutory interpretation argument based on constitutional avoidance.” Clark v. especially when the commander reserves authority to protect military property by. a bus stop. a school. “The canon [of constitutional avoidance] is not a method of adjudicating constitutional questions by other means. ____ (2014) Opinion of the Court 13 command of a military officer. . But the Court of Appeals never reached Apel’s constitutional arguments. 543 U. But we do not “interpret” statutes by gerrymandering them with a list of exceptions that happen to describe a party’s case. S. Those limits do not change when the commander invites the public to use a portion of the base for a road. It is so ordered. and we decline to do so in the first instance. 371. . * * * Where a place with a defined boundary is under the administration of a military department. 381 (2005). among other things. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated. or a protest area. not to apply to peaceful protests on a public road outside of a closed military base over which an easement has been granted and that has been declared a protest zone”). and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See Brief for Respondent 54 (“the statute should be interpreted . III Much of the rest of Apel’s brief is devoted to arguing that §1382 would be unconstitutional as applied to him on this Base.Cite as: 571 U. S. excluding vandals and trespassers. the limits of the “military installation” for purposes of §1382 are coterminous with the commanding officer’s area of responsibility.
APPENDIX Santa Maria-Highway 1 Gate to Vandenberg Air Force Base .
But a key inquiry remains. or a painted green line—does not alter the boundaries of the Base or diminish the jurisdiction of the military commander. 177 (1983). place. checkpoint. 461 U. J. concurring. 171. however. (internal quotation marks omitted).” but those regulations must be “content-neutral [and] narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. at 11. while they do not alter the Base boundaries. must be assessed in light of the general public’s (including Apel’s) . That interest.” Ante. The stated interest of the Air Force in keeping Apel out of the area designated for peaceful protest lies in ensuring base security. and manner regulations. See also Reply Brief 21–22. its “ability to permissibly restrict expressive conduct is very limited. and painted line.” Ibid. for the fence. may alter the First Amendment calculus. C. ____ (2014) GINSBURG. in either a traditional or designated public forum. I agree with the Court’s reading of 18 U. Grace. In such venues. with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR joins.Cite as: 571 U. Brief for United States 22–26.” United States v. 2014] JUSTICE GINSBURG. S. concurring 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. the Government may enforce “reasonable time.. When the Government permits the public onto part of its property. S. 12–1038 _________________ UNITED STATES. PETITIONER v. JOHN DENNIS APEL ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT [February 26. S. a checkpoint. §1382: The military’s choice “to secure a portion of the Base more closely—be it with a fence.
. the highway located a few feet from the designated protest area. all situated in close proximity to the protest area. In accord with that reservation. concurring permission to traverse. See ante. United States.. ante (displaying maps of the area). See Appendix to opinion of the Court. 407 U. it is questionable whether Apel’s ouster from the protest area can withstand constitutional review. at any hour of the day or night. bus stop. at 2. APEL GINSBURG. As the Air Force has exhibited no “special interes[t] in who walks [or] talks” in these places. 198 (1972) (per curiam). J. Flower v. S. 197. and visitors’ center. Ante. The Air Force also permits open access to the middle school. The Court has properly reserved that issue for consideration on remand. I join the Court’s opinion. at 13.2 UNITED STATES v.
§1382. C. 709. 502. “ This Court . 529 (2009). 12–1038 _________________ UNITED STATES. Fox Television Stations. .Cite as: 571 U. Inc. JOHN DENNIS APEL ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT [February 26. S. J. n. PETITIONER v. 556 U. ‘not of first view. concurring. is one of final review. Our failure to address this question should not be interpreted to signify either agreement or disagreement with the arguments outlined in JUSTICE GINSBURG’s concurrence. 2014] JUSTICE ALITO.. and I see no reason to express any view on that question at this time.. See FCC v. The Ninth Circuit did not rule on the constitutionality of 18 U. Wilkinson. S. (quoting Cutter v. . 719. ____ (2014) ALITO. S. 7 (2005)). . concurring 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No.’ ” Ibid. S. 544 U.
Documents Similar To United States v. Apel
More From FD Shah