Turning to the First Amendment arguments, the court reiterated that military bases ordinarily are not public forums, citing Greer v. Spock (1976).

Even if the open house was a public forum, the court found that the statute was content-neutral, subjecting it to the test of United States v. O'Brien (1968) for incidental burdens on speech.

According to law professor David S. Day, Albertini used the O'Brien test in a way such that "the not greater than necessary prong was not the equivalent of a least restrictive alternative analysis".

[4] He concluded that Albertini, along with Wayte v. United States earlier the same year, effectively "reduced the means scrutiny to the rational basis level".

[5] A law review article by Carney R. Shegerian highlighted how a later case Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989) "gave the narrowly tailored requirement little, if any, force" by relying on language from Albertini along with Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984).

The court applied no First Amendment scrutiny to the effect of the forced closure, distinguishing O'Brien and Albertini because the prohibited sexual activities had no expressive element.

[7] In First Amendment scholar Geoffrey R. Stone's view, Albertini meant either that there were exceptions to Arcara not recognized there, or that "expressive" activity could be very broad.

[9] Constitutional law scholar Wesley Jud Campbell argued that "the Court's method of decision in Albertini simply does not reflect current doctrine following Arcara.