Important in an age of protests: D.C. Court of Appeals Clarifies Jury Instructions for Unlawful Entry on Public Property
On June 26, 2025, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a decision in Derek J. Morris v. United States that could shape how future prosecutions for “unlawful entry” on public property are handled. The court’s ruling highlights the special legal protections that apply when the government seeks to remove people from public spaces, and it sets a new requirement for jury instructions in these cases.
What happened in this case?
Dr. Derek Morris was trying to file paperwork with the U.S. Supreme Court. He had mailed a petition for a writ of certiorari (a request for the Supreme Court to hear his case), but it was rejected as late. Determined to submit it in person, he traveled several times from California to Washington, D.C., to try to hand his paperwork directly to staff in the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office.
Supreme Court rules, however, require that people who want to hand-deliver filings must give them to the Supreme Court Police at a security booth outside the building. This rule exists because filings need to be screened for safety reasons. While members of the public may enter the Clerk’s Office, they may do so only for business purposes like asking questions about their cases—not to file documents directly. There are signs posted about these requirements.
On January 14, 2020, Dr. Morris once again went to the Clerk’s Office to try to file his petition. Staff told him he needed to use the police booth, but he refused. He became upset, used harsh language with staff, and stayed in the office for about thirty minutes. Officers from the Supreme Court Police repeatedly asked him to leave, and the Chief of Police eventually told him that if he didn’t leave, he would be arrested. Dr. Morris refused, saying “arrest me,” and the officers did.
He was charged in D.C. Superior Court with unlawful entry—specifically, remaining on public premises without authority under D.C. Code § 22-3302(b). A jury convicted him.
What was the legal issue on appeal?
At trial, the judge instructed the jury using the standard “model instruction” for unlawful entry. That instruction lists several elements the government must prove, including that the defendant was told to leave by someone in charge and that he did not have lawful authority to remain.
Dr. Morris’s lawyers argued on appeal that the model instruction was incomplete. Under D.C. case law, they said, when the property in question is public property—like a government building—the government must prove an additional element: that the order to leave was supported by an independent justification, such as a posted rule or regulation. In other words, simply being told to leave by an official isn’t enough when the property is public. People generally have the right to be in public spaces, so the government must show a valid reason for excluding someone.
The Court of Appeals agreed that this “independent justification” requirement exists and must be clearly explained to juries. But because Dr. Morris’s trial lawyer had withdrawn a proposed change to the instruction and because the defense arguments at trial already focused on whether there was a valid reason for the order to leave, the court ruled the error didn’t affect the outcome of this case. Dr. Morris’s conviction was upheld.
What did the court decide for future cases?
While Dr. Morris lost his appeal, the decision will change how similar cases are tried going forward. The Court of Appeals ruled that juries must now be explicitly told about the independent justification requirement whenever the charge is unlawful entry on public property.
In the opinion, the court rewrote the model instruction to add this language (paraphrased):
“In addition to an order to leave, there must be some independent justification for that order—such as posted regulations, signs, fences, barricades, or some other pre-established policy, rule, or regulation.”
This means that in future cases, prosecutors can’t rely solely on the fact that an officer or official told someone to leave public property. They will have to show that the order to leave was backed up by a legitimate reason.
Why is this important?
The court’s decision reflects a balance between public order and individual rights. On private property, if the owner or someone in charge tells you to leave, that’s usually the end of the story. But public property is different. Government buildings, parks, and other public spaces belong to everyone, and people generally have a right to be there, even if they are expressing unpopular views.
Without the independent justification requirement, officials could potentially remove people from public spaces for arbitrary or discriminatory reasons—what the court called “the whim of a public official.” That could violate First Amendment rights (freedom of speech and assembly) and due process rights.
By requiring prosecutors to prove that an order to leave was grounded in an established rule or a legitimate reason (such as disruption, safety, or a posted policy), the court is making sure that these rights are protected.
What does this mean for future prosecutions?
This decision raises the bar for the government in unlawful entry cases involving public property. Prosecutors will now need to be prepared to show more than just the defendant’s refusal to leave when ordered. They must also show:
There was a clear policy, rule, regulation, or other valid reason that justified the order to leave, and
The defendant’s presence violated that rule or reason.
Examples of independent justifications might include:
Posted signs (e.g., “Authorized personnel only” or “Business purposes only”).
Established procedures (like the Supreme Court’s requirement that filings be submitted at the police booth).
Safety concerns or disruption (e.g., the person was interfering with government operations).
For defense attorneys, this change creates a new opportunity to challenge unlawful entry charges if the government can’t point to a specific policy or reason for the exclusion.
What should the public take away?
The Morris decision is a reminder that public property is different from private property. If you’re in a government building or public space, you usually have the right to be there—unless there’s a valid, clearly established reason you can’t.
At the same time, it’s important to remember that government agencies can adopt reasonable restrictions on how public property is used. Those restrictions are often posted and may be enforced for safety, security, or operational reasons.
For anyone facing an unlawful entry charge, the question after this case will be: Was there an independent justification for the order to leave? If the government can’t show one, the charge may not hold up.
What to do if you are charged with unlawful entry
If you are charged with unlawful entry—especially involving public property—do not try to handle it on your own. These cases can be complex, and the stakes can be high. A conviction can carry serious consequences, including a criminal record, fines, and even jail time.
It’s important to speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney right away. A qualified attorney will:
Review whether the government had a valid reason for the order to leave.
Investigate whether your rights were violated.
Challenge the evidence and hold the government to its burden of proof.
Advocate for dismissal or reduction of the charges when possible.
Do not delay. Consulting with an attorney as soon as possible can make a significant difference in the outcome of your case.
Bottom line
Dr. Morris’s conviction stands, but his case prompted an important clarification in D.C. law. From now on, juries will be told that the government must prove an order to leave public property was backed up by a real, pre-existing reason—not just the say-so of a public official. This change strengthens constitutional protections and could affect the outcome of future prosecutions for unlawful entry on public property.