United States v. Caputo, 201 F. Supp. 3d 65

Background

On November 26, 2015, Joseph Caputo climbed over the White House perimeter fence, was apprehended on the North Lawn, and his intrusion prompted a lockdown of the White House complex. He was unarmed and wore an American flag as a cape.
The government charged Caputo with one count under 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1) for knowingly entering restricted White House grounds without lawful authority.
Caputo moved to dismiss, arguing the statute (1) is facially overbroad under the First Amendment, (2) is unconstitutional as applied to his symbolic protest, and (3) is void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment.
The Government contended § 1752(a)(1) regulates conduct (not speech), is content-neutral, serves substantial governmental interests in protecting the President and White House, and gives adequate notice of prohibited conduct.
The Court evaluated forum status (public vs. nonpublic), First Amendment overbreadth and as-applied standards (including O’Brien), and vagueness/Due Process principles.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Facial First Amendment overbreadth	§ 1752 chills protest fence-jumping and prohibits substantial protected speech	§ 1752 regulates conduct in a nonpublic forum and does not reach a substantial amount of protected speech	Denied — statute not facially overbroad; White House is a nonpublic forum so access can be lawfully restricted
As-applied First Amendment	Caputo’s fence-jump was symbolic political expression and § 1752 cannot criminalize it here	Even if expressive, statute targets conduct; O’Brien test applies and the law furthers important, content-neutral government interests	Denied — conduct was expressive but O’Brien controls; § 1752 satisfies O’Brien’s prongs, including necessity to protect White House security
Content-based regulation challenge	Statute is content-based and must face strict scrutiny	Statute is content-neutral, regulating access irrespective of message	Denied — statute is content-neutral because it does not target subject matter or viewpoint
Vagueness / Due Process	Phrase “without lawful authority” is ambiguous and invites arbitrary enforcement	White House perimeter and security practices give fair notice; defendant’s statements show he knew entry was illegal	Denied — statute gives ordinary people fair notice and is not unconstitutionally vague

Key Cases Cited

General Elec. Co. v. Jackson, 610 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (facial-challenge difficulty and standards)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (no-set-of-circumstances Salerno rule for facial challenges)
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) (overbreadth and vagueness principles)
Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (forum analysis and standards for nonpublic forums)
United States v. Powell, 563 A.2d 1086 (D.C. 1989) (fence/gate as notice of prohibited access)
U.S. Postal Serv. v. Greenburgh Civic Ass’ns, 453 U.S. 114 (1981) (no First Amendment right of access to government property)
Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (1976) (no unrestricted right to protest on military base/government property)
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (public vs. nonpublic forum inquiry)
White House Vigil for ERA Comm. v. Clark, 746 F.2d 1518 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (upholding restrictions near White House)
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) (definition of content-based restrictions)
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (as-applied expressive-conduct analysis and O’Brien framework)
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (test for regulations of noncommunicative conduct that incidentally affect speech)
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) (public concern and protection of controversial expression)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) (heightened vagueness scrutiny in First Amendment context)
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (vagueness standards for criminal statutes)