Connection lost
Server error
United States v. Schoon Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Activists protesting U.S. policy in El Salvador were convicted for obstructing an IRS office. The court held that the necessity defense is unavailable as a matter of law for acts of indirect civil disobedience, where the law being broken is not the law being protested.
Legal Significance: This case establishes a per se rule in the Ninth Circuit that the necessity defense is unavailable in cases of indirect civil disobedience, effectively barring its use in most political protest cases.
United States v. Schoon Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Appellants Gregory Schoon, Raymond Kennon, Jr., and Patricia Manning, along with other protestors, entered an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office in Tucson, Arizona, to protest United States involvement in El Salvador. Inside, they chanted, splashed simulated blood on government property, and obstructed the office’s operations. After refusing orders from a federal police officer to disperse, they were arrested and charged with obstructing IRS activities and failing to comply with a federal officer’s order. At their bench trial, the appellants sought to introduce a necessity defense. They proffered testimony about the violent conditions in El Salvador, arguing their actions were necessary to prevent further bloodshed. The district court, relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, precluded the defense as a matter of law, finding that the elements of the defense could not be met. The appellants did not challenge the validity of the laws under which they were charged; rather, their illegal acts were intended to draw attention to a separate government policy. The court of appeals characterized this as “indirect civil disobedience.”
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is the common law defense of necessity available as a matter of law to defendants charged with criminal acts of indirect civil disobedience aimed at protesting a government policy?
No. The necessity defense is inapplicable to cases involving indirect civil disobedience. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad m
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is the common law defense of necessity available as a matter of law to defendants charged with criminal acts of indirect civil disobedience aimed at protesting a government policy?
Conclusion
This case creates a bright-line rule in the Ninth Circuit that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labor
Legal Rule
The necessity defense is unavailable as a matter of law in cases Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
Legal Analysis
The court began by distinguishing between direct civil disobedience (violating the specific Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequ
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The necessity defense is categorically unavailable for indirect civil disobedience. -