In United States v. Brandendurg, --- F.4th ---, No. 24-5966 (9th Cir. 2025), the Court affirmed the district court’s imposition of a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(4)(A) for substantial disruption of governmental functions.
This appeal arises from Bryan Brandenburg’s bomb threats directed towards a Salt Lake City courthouse and a number of other governmental and educational institutions. Following his conviction by a jury, the district court imposed sentencing enhancements for substantial disruption of governmental functions and obstruction of justice and determined that he did not qualify for an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. This opinion focuses on the enhancement related to “substantial disruption of . . . governmental . . . functions” under U.S. Sentencing Guideline (“U.S.S.G.”) 2A6.1(b)(4)(A).Brandenburg’s threats kickstarted a series of security measures to secure the courthouse, including creation of a threat working group, enhanced screenings, surveillance video reviews, and continuous patrols. However, he claims that the disruption did not relate to governmental functions because security is not a governmental function, the disruption was not public facing, and the courthouse continued operations. This crabbed view of the Guideline ignores the plain meaning of “disruption” and miscomprehends the role of courthouse security, which is an integral function of courthouse operations. Indeed, security functions performed behind the scenes, away from public view, are just as important as the prominent security apparatus the public sees upon entering a courthouse.As then-Judge Kennedy wrote when he was a member of this court, “[t]he serenity of the court of appeals is not so debilitating that we fail to appreciate the real dangers posed by threats of violence directed at other courthouses and government facilities.” McMorris v. Alioto, 567 F.2d 897, 900 (9th Cir. 1978). Recent threats to judges and courthouses have only amplified this sentiment. We hold that a non-public-facing security response to a threat may qualify as a “substantial disruption of . . . governmental . . . functions” under Sentencing Guideline 2A6.1(b)(4)(A).
