980 F.3d 924
4th Cir.2020Background
- Beckie Moriello, an immigration attorney, observed a closed asylum hearing at the Charlotte Immigration Court and used her cell phone during the proceeding.
- Protective Security Officer (PSO) Pinar Bridges and Immigration Judge Barry Pettinato each directed Moriello to stop using her phone; she repeatedly refused, became argumentative, and moved to the back of the courtroom.
- PSOs and local police escorted Moriello out; FPS officers issued citations charging violations of two federal facility regulations: (1) 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.385 (Direction Regulation) and (2) 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.390 (Conduct Regulation).
- Moriello sought dismissal and raised constitutional challenges (vagueness, nondelegation, Tenth Amendment), argued regulatory misinterpretation, and contested sufficiency of the evidence; she rejected a civil settlement and demanded a criminal trial.
- A magistrate judge convicted her on both counts and fined her $2,500; the district court affirmed, and the Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo on legal issues and for substantial-evidence on sufficiency.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed: regulations were constitutional, properly interpreted, and the evidence supported convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of regulations | Regulations fail to specify who is an “authorized individual” or what conduct is proscribed | Regulations give fair notice that refusing lawful directions to cease distracting courtroom conduct is prohibited | The regs are not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Moriello’s disruptive, repeatedly noncompliant conduct |
| Nondelegation | §1315 unlawfully delegates lawmaking/penal authority to agencies/officials | §1315 supplies an intelligible principle; precedent permits delegation to agency managing federal property | Delegation constitutional; precedents (including Cassiagnol) control and §1315 is permissible |
| Tenth Amendment | Federal regulations improperly infringe state/reserved powers | Regulations regulate conduct on federal property under Constitution’s property and necessary-and-proper clauses | No Tenth Amendment violation; regulating federal property is within federal power |
| Proper scope of “authorized individual” and “lawful direction” under Direction Reg. | Only federal law-enforcement (not PSOs or IJs) can be “authorized individuals”; no specific rule barred phone use so direction was unlawful | Immigration judges and PSOs have legal/formal authority to issue lawful directions to maintain courtroom order | Court interpreted “authorized individual” to include immigration judges and PSOs; their directions were lawful |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Conduct Reg. | Government failed to prove disruption of official duties | Testimony showed repeated refusal, required additional officers, and judge recessed proceedings — disrupted official duties | Substantial evidence supported that Moriello’s conduct disrupted the immigration judge’s duties; conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Cooper, 842 F.3d 833 (4th Cir. 2016) (void-for-vagueness standard cited)
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) (vagueness doctrine principle)
- United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 (1975) (as-applied vagueness analysis)
- Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (as-applied vs facial vagueness)
- Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116 (2019) (intelligible-principle framework for nondelegation)
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) (delegation doctrine analysis)
- Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160 (1991) (criminal-regulation delegation discussion)
- United States v. Cassiagnol, 420 F.2d 868 (4th Cir. 1970) (upholding predecessor regulation; controlling circuit precedent)
- Stevens v. Osuna, 877 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2017) (immigration judge’s authority comparable to a judge)
- United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849 (4th Cir. 1996) (substantial-evidence standard for convictions)