United States v. Schoon

Content sourced from Wikipedia, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

United States v. Schoon (9th Cir. 1991) - Plain-language overview

What the case was about
A group of protesters disrupted a Tucson, Arizona IRS office in December 1989 to protest U.S. funding for El Salvador. Schoon and others were arrested for disobeying Federal police orders and obstructing IRS operations. Schoon argued that his illegal actions were necessary to prevent greater harm in El Salvador and sought to raise the necessity defense at trial.

What the court decided
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against Schoon. It held that the necessity defense could not be used in this case because the protesters were charged with breaking laws that were not the ones they were protesting, and because Congress had already approved the U.S. policy toward El Salvador. In other words, there was no legally cognizable harm to justify the necessity defense.

Why the defense failed (Majority view)
The court outlined four elements that must be met for the necessity defense to apply:
1) The defendant faced two bad options and chose the lesser harm.
2) The defendant acted to prevent imminent harm.
3) The defendant reasonably believed the action could prevent that harm.
4) The defendant had no reasonable legal alternative.

The Ninth Circuit said these factors were not satisfied. More importantly, the court explained a deeper reason: the case involved indirect civil disobedience. Schoon protested a policy toward El Salvador by violating unrelated federal laws (the police order and IRS operations). In direct civil disobedience (like sit-ins against segregated facilities), the laws violated are the same ones being protested. Because the policy toward El Salvador had been approved by Congress, the court found there was no preventing harm to justify the necessity defense.

Utilitarian basis of the defense
Necessity is a utilitarian defense: it applies only when the illegal action prevents a greater societal harm. If there is no such harm to prevent (because the policy is legally established), the defense cannot succeed. The court emphasized that Schoon could not rely on a subjective belief that the policy was morally wrong if it was legally enacted.

Concurrence
Judge Fernandez wrote a brief concurring opinion agreeing with the outcome, but suggesting the defense should perhaps be grounded in a broader sense of right conduct rather than solely on utilitarian calculations. He questioned whether the Ninth Circuit’s prior approach to indirect civil disobedience should be an absolute rule.

Background details
- Date of protest: December 4, 1989
- Location: Internal Revenue Service office, Tucson, Arizona
- Actions: Chanting against U.S. funding to El Salvador and throwing fake blood; refused to disperse; arrested
- Charges: Failing to comply with a federal officer’s orders and obstructing government functions
- Outcome: Ninth Circuit majority held the necessity defense could not be raised; indirect civil disobedience does not excuse violations of unrelated laws when Congress has approved the underlying policy.

Impact
United States v. Schoon clarified that defendants cannot rely on the necessity defense when their unlawful actions are directed at protesting a policy that Congress has already authorized, especially when the acts violate laws not directly tied to the protest. It also reflected the ongoing tension around civil disobedience and criminal liability at the federal level.