United States v. Schoon

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawNecessity DefenseCivil Disobediencenecessityindirect civil disobediencepolitical protestlegal alternativescausal relationship

Facts

On December 4, 1989, appellants and others entered an IRS office in Tucson to protest United States involvement in El Salvador. They chanted slogans, splashed simulated blood on counters, walls, and carpeting, and obstructed the office's operations. After a federal police officer repeatedly ordered the group to disperse or face arrest, appellants were arrested. At trial, they offered evidence about conditions in El Salvador and claimed their conduct was necessary to avoid further bloodshed there, but the district court excluded the necessity defense.

Issue

Whether defendants charged for obstructing an IRS office during a political protest against United States policy in El Salvador could assert a necessity defense. More specifically, the question was whether the necessity defense is available in a case of indirect civil disobedience.

Rule

A district court may preclude a necessity defense when the defendant's offer of proof is insufficient as a matter of law. Although the traditional necessity elements are choice of evils, imminence, direct causal relationship, and no legal alternatives, the Ninth Circuit held that the necessity defense is categorically unavailable in cases of indirect civil disobedience because such cases cannot satisfy the balance-of-harms, causal-relationship, and legal-alternatives requirements.

🔒

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.

In Portland, Oregon, Lena Ortiz and three others enter a regional office of the Federal Benefits Clearing Center and chain themselves to the lobby furniture to protest Congress's continued funding of military aid to a foreign nation. They are charged with trespass and refusing an officer's order to leave, and Lena offers evidence that civilians abroad are being killed daily and that her protest was necessary to save lives.

Should the trial court allow Lena to present a necessity defense?

Explanation. The majority held that necessity is categorically unavailable in cases of indirect civil disobedience. Lena is violating trespass-related laws to protest a separate governmental policy, not the laws under which she is charged. In that setting, the defense fails as a matter of law because the policy's existence is not a legally cognizable harm for necessity purposes, the illegal act does not directly abate the complained-of harm, and lawful political activity remains a legal alternative.