Document: 444 U.S. 453 100 S.Ct. 606 62 L.Ed.2d 607 SECRETARY OF the NAVY et al., Petitioners,v.Frank L. HUFF al. No. 78-599. Jan. 21, 1980. Kent Jones, Office of Sol. Gen., Dept. Justice, Washington, D. C., for petitioners, pro hac vice, by special leave Court. Alan Dranitzke, respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 The question in this case is whether Navy and Marine Corps regulations violate 10 U.S.C. § 1034 requiring military personnel on an overseas base to obtain command approval before circulating petitions addressed Members Congress. Section provides that "[n]o person may restrict any member armed force communicating with a Congress, unless communication unlawful or violates regulation necessary security United States." 2 * In 1974, Frank Huff, Robert A. Falatine, E. Gabrielson were serving at States Air Station Iwakuni, Japan. On separate occasions, each them sought commander's permission circulate petition Member dealt use forces labor disputes within States, amnesty men who resisted draft deserted Armed Forces during Vietnam war, support Government South Korea. first two requests proposed circulation base; last both without base. commander denied requests, but he allowed about Korea 3 another occasion, Huff Falatine asked distribute leaflet annotating Declaration Independence First Amendment commentary critical commanders petitioning. Falatine's request ground was disrespectful contemptuous, same day explanation, granted material. Finally, respondents arrested outside Congress objected American government They charged violating because they had circulated requesting approval. convicted sentenced confinement, forfeiture half-pay, reduction grade. charges against dismissed lack evidence. 4 then brought class action District Court Columbia, seeking declaratory injunctive relief future enforcement four regulations.1 Each provides, relevant part, members shall not "originate, sign, distribute, promulgate petitions, publications, . other written material installation duty uniform, anywhere foreign country irrespective uniform status, prior obtained."2 contended requirement violated Amendment. petitioners conceded misapplied when their base, no these past wrongs. Thus, issue presented facial validity require petitioning inside Iwakuni air station. 5 cross-motions summary judgment, court declared invalid respect materials distributed off-duty hours away from restricted work areas. upheld distributions situation, concluded, prevent political activity violation Status Agreement between Japan.3 413 F.Supp. 863 (1976). appealed, did cross appeal.4 6 Appeals Columbia Circuit affirmed part vacated part. 188 U.S.App.D.C. 26, 575 F.2d 907 (1987). It concluded only real controversy parties concerned application challenged addressing therefore considered as affect held such 1034. That statute, gives individuals groups right allows restrictions are "necessary Since record showed "an actual current combat zone," shown restraint national security. reach also 7 We certiorari consider regulations, 440 957, 259, 178 (1979).5 II 8 Brown v. Glines, 348, 594, 540, decided today, we "Congress enacted ensure individual Services could write his elected representatives sending through official channels." Id., 359, S.Ct., 602. Nothing legislative history suggests intended authorize unrestricted Indeed, have determined "the character requires civilian authorities accord some flexibility dealing matters internal discipline morale." 360, construing statutes matters, must limit authority more than purpose requires. Permitting submit directly serves unnecessarily endangering ability preserve morale good order among troops. therefore, does invalidate secure 9 reached contrary conclusion case, its judgment Reversed. 11 Mr. Justice MARSHALL took consideration decision case. 12 STEWART, STEVENS dissent. For reasons stated dissenting opinions 374 378, 603 605, would affirm consists "all stationed at, assigned to, Japan." 863, 864-865 expunging arrest record, invalidating Huff's conviction, restoring all benefits result conviction. 865. Those claims, however, longer See infra, 456, n. 4. Fleet Force Pacific Order 5370.3, ¶ 3(b) (1974). full subparagraph reads: "No Force, Bases, Pacific, will originate, including pamphlets, newspapers, magazines, handbills, flyers, printed material, board ship, craft, aircraft, vehicle Department Navy, obtained." three although different geographic scope, substantially identical language. Instruction 5440.3C, 2604.2(2) (1974); Aircraft Wing 5370.1B, 5(a)(2) 5370.3A, (1973). directs "control prohibit" materials, that, would: "(1) Materially interfere safety, operation, command, control unit duties particular command; or, "(2) Present clear danger loyalty, discipline, morale, safety [sic] "(3) Involve distribution rendering advice counsel causes, attempts cause, advocates, insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal duty, solicits desertion, discloses classified information, contains obscene pornographic matter; "(4) planning perpetration act acts." 4(a) 2604.2(4) (1973); 6(c) 5(c) respondents' complaint challenge standards, App. 5-7, review them, 32-33, 907, 913-914 (1978). us requirement. Article XVI Japan specifically proscribes servicemen host country. [1960] U.S.T. 1664, T.I.A.S. 4510. expungement invalidation conviction permission, restoration found valid applied claims relief. F.Supp., 870. At oral argument, Tr. Oral Arg. 30. Our today sustains type and, disposes contention. either Glines claim instance. U.S., 357, 15, 601, 15; supra, 456. noted, Service promulgated under Defense directive "advises servicemen's 'right expression maximum extent possible, consistent security.' " 355, 600. A service thinks has can seek remedies service. See, e. g., Uniform Code Military Art. 138, 938. Furthermore, federal courts open assure applying do abuse discretion necessarily vested them.

Category: 2