## Facts

- Michael R. Walli, Megan Rice, and Greg Boertje-Obed opposed nuclear weapons on moral and international-law grounds.
- They entered the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, a facility that produces and stores enriched uranium and nuclear-weapon components.
- They moved through the complex for roughly two hours and reached the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Nuclear Facility (HEUMNF).
- At the HEUMNF, they splashed human blood on the building, hammered on the wall, stretched “crime scene” tape, spray-painted words, and hung banners.
- When discovered by a security guard, they read a statement, offered bread, and sang.
- The incident resulted in cleanup costs of about $8,500 and a shutdown of Y-12 for approximately fifteen days to address security concerns.
- After an initial indictment that included misdemeanor trespass, the government obtained a superseding indictment replacing trespass with a felony “sabotage” charge under 18 U.S.C. § 2155(a), increasing potential imprisonment.
- Defendants filed motions to dismiss the superseding indictment, sought a bill of particulars and discovery, and planned to present necessity and related international-law/Nuremberg defenses; the government moved to preclude those defenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the superseding indictment sufficiently stated a sabotage offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2155(a), including whether “injury” and “intent to injure, interfere with, or obstruct the national defense” were adequately alleged.
2. Whether § 2155(a) requires proof of violent conduct or catastrophic/strategic harm to national-defense capabilities, rather than minor damage and operational disruption.
3. Whether defendants could present a necessity defense or related international-law/Nuremberg-based arguments to justify unlawful entry and damage to a national-defense facility.
4. Whether evidence and argument about the alleged illegality or immorality of nuclear weapons was relevant and admissible, or excludable under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the superseding indictment and allowed the § 2155(a) sabotage count to proceed.
- The court held that nonviolent, symbolic protest is not exempt from § 2155(a) and that “injury” may be shown by physical damage, cleanup costs, and disruption of operations.
- The court granted the government’s motion in substantial part to bar the necessity defense and to exclude international-law/Nuremberg arguments and related evidence.
- The court limited trial evidence to matters bearing on the charged elements (acts, injury/depredation, and intent), excluding broad policy and moral arguments as irrelevant or unduly confusing.

## Legal Principles

- An indictment charging 18 U.S.C. § 2155(a) is sufficient if it alleges willful injury to national-defense premises and intent to injure, interfere with, or obstruct the national defense; the government need not plead or prove violence.
- For § 2155(a), “injury” is not limited to catastrophic damage; repair/cleanup costs and operational disruption can satisfy the injury and interference components.
- Intent under § 2155(a) may be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances, including unlawful penetration of secured areas and actions reasonably understood to disrupt facility operations.
- Necessity requires, at minimum, an imminent threatened harm and the absence of reasonable legal alternatives; generalized risks and policy objections do not satisfy these elements as a matter of law.
- Evidence concerning the legality or morality of nuclear weapons and broad international-law theories is irrelevant to the elements of property-damage and sabotage offenses, and may be excluded under Rule 403 to prevent confusion, unfair prejudice, and wasted time.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the felony sabotage charge arising from defendants’ entry into and damage/disruption of a national-defense facility and restricted the trial to the statutory elements, ruling that necessity and international-law/Nuremberg defenses were legally unavailable and that policy-based evidence about nuclear weapons was irrelevant and excludable.


United States v. Walli, No. 3:12-CR-107, 2013 WL 1838159 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 30, 2013)