United States v. William Szabo
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14376
9th Cir.2014Background
- William J. Szabo, a VA patient with a history of disruptive behavior, was required to have police escort and limited to one treating physician.
- On Aug. 29, 2011, Szabo yelled loud obscenities and threatened a VA receptionist and others at a VA outpatient mental health clinic; patients left the area and VA security/police intervened; Szabo pushed an officer and was arrested.
- He was convicted after a bench trial of disorderly conduct under 38 C.F.R. § 1.218(a)(5), which prohibits disturbances at VA facilities (including loud/abusive language and conduct that impedes VA functions).
- Szabo appealed, arguing the regulation violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment (vagueness), both facially and as applied to him; he also sought admission of expert testimony about his mental illness (which the district court excluded).
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed as to the as-applied challenges and dismissed the facial overbreadth challenge for lack of jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 502, while a concurring/dissenting judge argued the court should hear the facial claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Szabo) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Szabo's conduct is protected First Amendment speech | His words are speech protected by the First Amendment | His threats and disruptive conduct were unprotected (true threats) and disrupted a nonpublic forum (VA facility) | Court: Conduct was a true threat/unprotected; even if protected, the regulation is viewpoint-neutral and reasonable in a nonpublic forum — upheld as applied |
| Whether 38 C.F.R. § 1.218(a)(5) is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Regulation is vague; Szabo lacked fair notice | Regulation clearly proscribes loud, abusive, disruptive conduct — Szabo’s conduct falls squarely within it | Court: Not vague as applied to Szabo; his conduct plainly fit the regulation |
| Whether Szabo could introduce expert mental‑health testimony (diminished capacity) | Expert testimony would show diminished capacity relevant to culpability | Disorderly conduct is a general-intent offense; diminished-capacity evidence not available | Court: District court did not abuse discretion excluding testimony; general-intent crime bars diminished-capacity defense |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear a facial overbreadth challenge to the VA regulation | Szabo sought to invalidate the regulation on its face | Federal Circuit has exclusive review over facial challenges to VA regulations per 38 U.S.C. § 502; this court lacks jurisdiction | Court: Dismissed facial challenge for lack of jurisdiction; Szabo may pursue Federal Circuit review (concurring judge dissented) |
Key Cases Cited
- Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002) (threats of violence are not First Amendment protected speech)
- Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2008) (VA medical facilities are nonpublic fora; speech restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (forum analysis governs permissible speech regulation)
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) (vagueness standard for criminal statutes/regulations)
- Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944) (Congress may prescribe special statutory review procedures for agency regulations without violating due process)