United States v. Apel
134 S. Ct. 1144
SCOTUS2014Background
- Vandenberg AFB is a closed military installation with restricted civilian access and is owned by the United States and administered by the Air Force.
- An easement allows Santa Barbara County to traverse two state roads (Highway 1 and Highway 246) through the Base, with the government reserving rights for protection and operation purposes.
- The protest area is within the Base, marked by a painted line and temporary fencing, and subject to Base-issued rules restricting access and activities there.
- Apel, an antiwar activist, was trespassed and barred from the Base for protests; he violated barment orders by reentering and engaging in protest activity.
- Apel was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1382 for reentering a military installation after being barred, a conviction upheld by the district court but reversed by the Ninth Circuit based on exclusive possession theory.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether § 1382 applies to the protest area and easement roadway, and ultimately vacated the Ninth Circuit judgment to remand for a proper § 1382 construction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 1382 reach the protest area on Vandenberg AFB? | Apel: easement areas are outside installation control; § 1382 lacks exclusive possession here. | United States: § 1382 reaches all property within the Base boundaries under command authority. | Yes; § 1382 applies to all property within the defined military installation. |
| Is exclusive possession/control a prerequisite to § 1382 liability? | Apel: exclusive possession is required for § 1382 to apply. | Apel relies on misunderstood precedent; text and history show broader reach. | No; § 1382 does not require exclusive possession. |
| Do road easements and non-fenced areas alter the Base boundaries for § 1382 purposes? | Apel: roads outside entrance and protest area are outside installation boundaries. | Base jurisdiction extends over the easement and protest area; command authority remains. | No; boundaries are coterminous with the commander’s area of responsibility. |
| Should constitutional avoidance affect the § 1382 interpretation here? | Apel raises First Amendment concerns via statutory interpretation. | Court should avoid constitutional ruling only if necessary; not as a method of statutory construction. | Not addressed on the merits; avoided for now. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Phisterer, 94 U.S. 219 (1877) (military station defined; not requiring exclusive possession)
- United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675 (1985) (definition of military installation; boundaries and jurisdiction)
- Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152 (1990) (statutory interpretation not bound by DOJ opinions)
- Flower v. United States, 407 U.S. 197 (1972) (First Amendment in public-facing venues)
- United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983) (public forum analysis for expressive conduct)