United States v. Apel
Holding
For purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1382, which makes it a crime to re-enter a "military installation" after having been ordered not to do so, a portion of an Air Force base that contains a designated protest area and an easement for a public road qualifies as a "military installation."
Judgment
Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by John Roberts on Feb 26, 2014. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Sotomayor joined. Justice Alito also filed a concurring opinion.
Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1382, which prohibits a person from reentering a military installation after a commanding officer has ordered him not to reenter, may be enforced on a portion of a military installation that is subject to a public roadway easement.
Recommended Citation: United States v. Apel, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/united-states-v-apel/