Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

United States v. Albertini

• 1984 • 472 U.S. 675 • Burger Court
In the United States v. Albertini case of 1984, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a federal law prohibiting reentry onto military property by persons barred from those premises was constitutional and did not violate First Amendment rights. The defendant, Michael Albertini, had been previously banned from Hickam Air Force Base due to prior protests but returned during an open house event in order to protest again. He argued that his actions were protected under the First Amendment as peaceful...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1984
Docket: 83-1624
472 U.S. 675
105 S. Ct. 2897
86 L. Ed. 2d 536
1985 U.S. LEXIS 100
Argued: Apr 15, 1985

United States v. Albertini

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the United States v. Albertini case of 1984, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a federal law prohibiting reentry onto military property by persons barred from those premises was constitutional and did not violate First Amendment rights. The defendant, Michael Albertini, had been previously banned from Hickam Air Force Base due to prior protests but returned during an open house event in order to protest again. He argued that his actions were protected under the First Amendment as peaceful symbolic speech. However, the court disagreed stating that while public military bases may be open for civilians on certain occasions, they are not considered public forums where individuals can freely express their views without restriction. Therefore, it held that banning him after he disrupted good order and discipline at a military installation was within its authority and did not infringe upon his freedom of speech.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Albertini, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §1382 was overly broad and infringed upon First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly. He contended that this statute should be interpreted narrowly to only prohibit reentry onto a military base after being barred due to previous misconduct on the base itself, not because of off-base activities or beliefs held by an individual. Furthermore, he asserted that even if Albertini’s conduct could fall within the scope of §1382 as construed by the majority, his actions were protected under symbolic speech doctrine established in prior cases like Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). Lastly, Brennan expressed concern over potential misuse of this law against political dissidents which would undermine democratic principles.

Opinion written by Justice SDOConnor
Decided: Jun 24, 1985
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms