Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

United States v. Albertini

Supreme Court of the United States · 1985 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentMilitary BasesStatutory Interpretation18 U.S.C. § 1382military installationbar letteropen house

Facts

In 1972, respondent entered Hickam Air Force Base, obtained access to secret Air Force documents, and destroyed them by pouring animal blood on them; he was then given a written order forbidding him to reenter Hickam without written permission from the commander or a designated officer. In 1981, Hickam held an Armed Forces Day open house and invited the public onto portions of the base. Respondent attended with companions to participate in a peaceful anti-nuclear demonstration, although he himself took photographs and did not disrupt the event. Military police removed him after the commander learned he might be a person previously barred from the base, and he was charged under § 1382 for reentering after having been ordered not to return.

Issue

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1382 applies to a person who reenters a military base during a publicly advertised open house after previously receiving a valid order not to reenter, and whether enforcing that order under these circumstances violates the First Amendment.

Rule

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1382, a person violates the statute by reentering a military installation after having been ordered not to reenter by the commanding officer; the statute is not limited by a judicially imposed time period, does apply during a base open house, and does not require proof that the defendant specifically knew his conduct violated an extant bar order. Enforcement of § 1382 against a person previously validly barred from a military base is content-neutral and constitutional if it satisfies the O'Brien standard for incidental burdens on speech.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Years after vandalizing communications equipment at Fort Mercer near El Paso, Daniel Ruiz received a written order from the base commander barring him from reentering without written permission. The fort later hosted a publicly advertised family day, opening certain areas to thousands of civilians, and Daniel entered those areas to distribute antiwar flyers without seeking permission.

If Daniel is prosecuted for reentering after having been barred, what is the strongest argument for upholding the conviction?

Explanation. The majority held that enforcement of a valid bar order under § 1382 during an open house is aimed at reentry after exclusion, not at suppressing expression. That makes the regulation content-neutral, and incidental burdens on speech are evaluated under O'Brien. The Court rejected the view that a temporary public invitation automatically nullifies a valid exclusion order or transforms the base into a traditional public forum for all purposes.