by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law and ACS Faculty Advisor, University of California, Irvine School of Law
United States v. Apel, which I argued in the Supreme Court on December 4, involves the right to protest outside of a closed military base. Vandenberg Air Force Base, located in California, is surrounded by a fenced perimeter and entering requires going through a gate with an armed guard. About two hundred yards from the perimeter the military has painted a green line on the ground. Just outside this green line is Highway 1, Pacific Coast Highway. The military has given an easement to California for Highway 1, which is a fully open road with no signs to even indicate that it is part of the base. On the edge of Highway 1, on the public side of the green line, there is a designated protest zone.
My client, Dennis Apel, has been protesting outside of Vandenberg Air Force Base for the last 17 years. In 2003, right before the Iraq war, he threw blood against the wall, just inside the green line, which says, “Vandenberg Air Force Base.” He was convicted of vandalism and spent a short time in jail. He was issued a bar order keeping him from the base. In 2007, he went into the base in violation of his bar letter and was given a letter permanently barring him from entering Vandenberg.
On several occasions in 2010, he went to protest at Vandenberg. He always stayed on the public side of the green line in the public protest area on Highway 1. Military officials said that he was on base property in violation of the bar letter and ordered him to leave; when he refused he was prosecuted and convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. §1382, which prohibits entering a military base after a person has been barred.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed his conviction holding that §1382 applies only if the United States has exclusive possession of the area. This is in accord with the approach followed for decades, in the Ninth Circuit and courts throughout the country.
The United States government sought certiorari and argued that §1382 applies to all of the area owned by the United States and that national security was jeopardized by the Ninth Circuit’s approach. There were two questions before the Supreme Court: first, does §1382 apply to this public protest zone? Second, if so, does the First Amendment protect a right to engage in peaceful protest?
The latest wrecking ball flailing around in the rubble of America’s election and campaign finance laws, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, will be argued in the Supreme Court on October 8. Once again we can expect counsel and some members of the Court to be on the lookout for deviant, “forbidden” thinking about money and democracy.
At issue is whether the federal aggregate contribution limits (currently $48,000 to candidates and $74,000 to party committees) violate freedom of speech under the First Amendment. One plaintiff is Shaun McCutcheon, CEO of a company that services the coal and mining industry. Although he was among a handful of people who contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidates and SuperPACs in the last election cycle, he claims that his freedom of speech is violated by the federal aggregate limit of $123,000. The other plaintiff is the Republican National Committee, whose members naturally wish to receive as much money as they can, and claim that the aggregate limits violate their freedom of speech.
by Thomas Healy, professor of law at Seton Hall Law School. A graduate of Columbia Law School, he clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and was a Supreme Court correspondent for The Baltimore Sun. He has written extensively about free speech, the Constitution and the federal courts.
Over the past few months, the Obama administration’s effort to crack down on leakers has sparked a heated debate about the scope of First Amendment protection for those who shed light on government misconduct. The details of this debate are new, but the conflict between national security and expressive liberty that underlies it has a long and stormy past.
In many ways, the pressures a hundred years ago were similar to the ones we face now. The country was at war – although against a known and visible enemy, not a dispersed and shifting one. Fears ran high, especially with regard to immigrants. And many citizens were willing to give the government a free rein in dealing with the threats of the day.
The results, of course, were not pretty. One month after declaring war on Germany, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, which made it a crime to do or say anything that might obstruct the draft or cause insubordination in the military. A year later it approved the Sedition Act, which outlawed nearly any criticism of the government or the war.
Nearly two thousand indictments were brought under these laws, many based on the thinnest of reeds. One person was convicted for forwarding a chain letter that advocated an immediate peace; another for producing a movie that depicted British soldiers killing Americans during the Revolutionary War; and still another because she claimed that the war benefited capitalists. The punishments were also severe. At least two dozen people were sentenced to prison for 20 years, while many others received terms of five, 10 and 15 years.
Although the Espionage and Sedition Acts ceased to have effect when the war ended, the persecution didn’t stop. As the fear of German sympathizers was transformed into a fear of communism, the government found new methods to crack down on dissent. Congress allocated large sums of money to investigate seditious activities, a Senate committee released a list of 62 activists who were said to be enemies of the state, and Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer authorized a series of violent raids on the homes and meeting places of Russian immigrants.
Some legal scholars and defenders of the indefinite war on terror are coming, mostly with strained arguments, to the defense of the Obama administration’s abuse of freedom of speech. The First Amendment’s speech clause includes protection for a free press, a fairly fundamental way people communicate.
But the Obama administration, which has carried on some of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism tactics, and escalated others, such as the drone war, is obsessed with going after public officials and others suspected of leaking important details of counterterrorism activities and other national security concerns.
The Department of Justice has trolled the phone records of Associated Press reporters in a leak investigation of the AP’s coverage of a foiled terrorist plot in Yemen, and spied on the work of Fox News correspondent James Rosen, in another leak case involving a 2009 story about North Korea’s announcement of launching a nuclear missile. The Washington Post reported that the DOJ “used a security badge to access records to track the reporter’s comings and goings from the State Department… and “traced the timing of his calls with a State Department security adviser suspected of sharing the classified report.” The DOJ, The Post continues, obtained a search warrant for Rosen’s personal e-mails. The DOJ didn’t stop there. It’s arguing that Rosen may have been a co-conspirator in the leak. So now you have the federal government using the Espionage Act to go after alleged leakers, and a journalist, whose job partly entails keeping the public informed about its government.
Gabe Rottman for the ACLU’s Blog of Rights says “never before has the government argued that newsgathering – in this case, asking a source to provide sensitive information – is itself illegal. That would, quite literally, make virtually any question by a reporter implicating classified information a potential felony.”
Last week, when taking questions about his administration’s leak investigation involving secretly culling AP phone records, Obama said no apologies were necessary and provided a tired defense of his administration’s obsession with investigating and prosecuting leaks. Essentially Obama said trust the executive branch and leakers are bad.
But as noted here before war, as George Orwell once wrote has the effect of not meshing terribly well with individual liberties. In Homage to Catalonia about the Spanish Civil War, Orwell wrote, “The fact is that every war suffers a kind of progressive degradation with every month that it continues, because such things as individual liberty and a truthful press are simply not compatible with military efficiency.”
I went to law school with a particular passion in mind: the First Amendment and freedom of speech. Starting at Stanford in 1997, I took virtually every class the law school offered on the First Amendment, completed six additional credits on the origins of the legal theory of “prior restraint” in Tudor England, and worked for the ACLU of Northern California. I was nonetheless unprepared for the kind of censorship I would see on college campuses, first as legal director and then as president of The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education(FIRE).
I open Unlearning Liberty talking about the currently ongoing legal saga that straddles the chasm between absurd and serious. The case involved a student, Hayden Barnes, who protested against his school, Valdosta State University in southern Georgia, for its decision to build two parking garages on campus. He went about protesting the parking garages by contacting the Board of Regents and writing a letter to the editor of the student newspaper.