The United States v. Apel case in 2013 revolved around the issue of whether a military installation commander could enforce an order barring a civilian from entering any part of the base, including areas generally open to public access. John Dennis Apel had been barred from Vandenberg Air Force Base due to previous criminal activity but continued protesting on a designated protest area along the highway passing through it, leading to his arrest for trespassing. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that federal law clearly grants such authority and does not require ownership or exclusive possession of every square foot within its boundaries for jurisdictional purposes. Therefore, even though parts of the base were subject to easements granted by California state (including Highway 1), this did not diminish federal control over these areas nor limit enforcement against unauthorized entry.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Apel, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, argued that the majority's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §1382 was overly broad and inconsistent with its historical application. They contended that while the statute does prohibit individuals from reentering a military installation after being removed or barred therefrom, it should not apply to areas within an installation’s defined boundaries but nonetheless open to unrestricted public access like highways or protest zones. The dissenters believed this interpretation would unjustifiably expand federal jurisdiction and potentially criminalize innocent behavior such as stopping along a highway running through a base or attending protests in designated areas on base property.