United States v. William Szabo

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I only disagree with the majority opinion on one point: whether we lack jurisdiction to hear Szabo’s overbreadth defense. Because I believe we do have jurisdiction, I respectfully dissent.

The right to bring an overbreadth challenge is an important safeguard of civil liberty. By invalidating unfairly vague and far-reaching statutes, it serves to protect the liberty interests of those not before the court, and provides legislative bodies burdening speech with a compelling reason to draft narrowly tailored laws. Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U.S. 576, 586 , 109 S.Ct. 2633 , 105 L.Ed.2d 493 (1989) (controlling portion of opinion by Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part). Thus, a defendant retains the right to bring an overbreadth challenge to the law underlying her prosecution even if her own conduct is not protected by the First Amendment. Id. at 586-88 , 109 S.Ct. 2633 ; Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809, 815-16 , 95 S.Ct. 2222 , 44 L.Ed.2d 600 (1975) (“This Court often has recognized that a defendant’s standing to challenge a statute on First Amendment grounds as facially overbroad does not depend upon…

Defendant-Appellant William J. Szabo appeals from his judgment of conviction under Title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1.218(a)(5), arguing that the regulation violates the First and Fifth Amendments, both facially and as applied to his conduct. With regard to Szabo’s as-applied challenges, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dismiss Szabo’s facial challenge for lack of jurisdiction.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Szabo is a veteran who qualifies to receive services at Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities. Prior to August 29, 2011, Szabo was a patient at the Sacramento VA Medical Center outpatient mental health clinic (the VA Hospital). As a result of his prior behavioral problems at the VA Hospital, Szabo was required to have a police escort when he visited the facility, and he was only permitted to be treated by one particular physician.

On August 29, 2011, Szabo arrived at the VA Hospital and asked to see his doctor. He was accompanied only by his brother. A receptionist, who was familiar with Sza-bo, asked if Szabo had checked in with the VA police, and informed Szabo that he did not have an appointment. 1 In response, Szabo became angry,…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-10520 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:12-cr-00206-

MCE-

WILLIAM J. SZABO,

Defendant-Appellant. OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 9, 2013—San Francisco, California

Filed July 28, 2014

Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, Milan D. Smith, Jr., and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge D.W. Nelson SUMMARY*

Criminal Law

The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment with regard to the defendant’s as-applied constitutional challenges to 38 C.F.R. § 1.218(a)(5), and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction his facial challenge to the regulation, in a case in which the defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct in violation of § 1.218(a)(5), which prohibits causing “disturbances” at Veterans Affairs facilities.

Rejecting the defendant’s as-applied First Amendment challenge, the panel held…