The court's decision centered upon the legal defense of necessity as it relates to acts of civil disobedience and federal criminal charges.

On December 4, 1989, Schoon and approximately thirty people entered the Internal Revenue Service's local office in Tucson, Arizona.

The district court refused to admit this evidence, ruling that while Schoon had clearly humanitarian aims, the necessity defense was not applicable to his case.

The court noted that necessity is a utilitarian defense, meaning that it applies where the harm caused by the defendant's actions outweighs the societal cost of inaction.

[1] The majority cited several other examples, such as a crew mutinying when their ship was not seaworthy[2] and a court ruling that property could be destroyed to prevent the spread of fire.