United States v. Thomas Alonzo Bolin
976 F.3d 202
| 2d Cir. | 2020Background
- In March 2019 Bolin posted racist, anti‑Muslim, and pro‑violence content on Facebook and a photo of himself pointing a shotgun at the camera; he administered a white‑supremacist Facebook group.
- Those posts prompted an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force investigation after the Christchurch mosque attacks materials circulated online.
- During an interview on March 30, 2019, Task Force agents warned Bolin it was a crime to lie to the FBI; Bolin falsely denied possessing a firearm.
- The agents obtained consent from Bolin's landlord to search his rented room and found a Mossberg 12‑gauge shotgun, mask, and ammunition; Bolin was arrested and pled guilty to making a materially false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).
- At sentencing the district court imposed three years supervised release with two contested special conditions: (3) ban on posting or endorsing online content that "promotes or endorses violence"; (4) a requirement to participate in a Probation Office computer/internet monitoring program to use internet‑capable devices.
- Bolin appealed, arguing Conditions 3 and 4 were not reasonably related to his conviction and that Condition 3 was unconstitutionally vague under the First Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Conditions 3 and 4 are "reasonably related" to Bolin's §1001 conviction (U.S.S.G. §5D1.3 / 18 U.S.C. §3583/§3553) | Bolin: both conditions are too attenuated from a false‑statement conviction about firearm possession | Gov./district court: Bolin's violent, racist online speech prompted the FBI investigation that led to the false statement; conditions serve deterrence, public safety, rehabilitation | Court: Relationship is sufficient for both conditions; Condition 4 affirmed (monitoring reasonably related to defendant's history and characteristics) |
| Whether Condition 3 violates the First Amendment / is unconstitutionally vague | Bolin: the condition's language (esp. the added "Violence includes...") is vague and chills protected speech | Gov.: condition aims to prevent incitement and protect public safety by curbing violence‑promoting online speech | Court: Condition 3 as written is impermissibly vague (the added language blurs rather than narrows "violence"); it infringes First Amendment rights and is vacated and remanded for redrafting |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Eaglin, 913 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2019) (endorses monitoring as narrower alternative to an internet ban)
- Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017) (social media functions as modern public square)
- United States v. Ross, 476 F.3d 719 (9th Cir. 2007) (upheld restrictions on neo‑Nazi associations tied to firearm false‑statement)
- United States v. Showalter, 933 F.2d 573 (7th Cir. 1991) (approved curtailing extremist associations after firearm offenses)
- United States v. Browder, 866 F.3d 504 (2d Cir. 2017) (monitoring conditions must be narrowly tailored)
- United States v. Lifshitz, 369 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2004) (limits on overly broad monitoring conditions)
- United States v. Myers, 426 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2005) (heightened review when fundamental liberty interests implicated)
- United States v. Cabot, 325 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2003) (due process requires conditions be sufficiently clear to inform probationer what is prohibited)