Smith v. Goguen
415 U.S. 566 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal statute is unconstitutionally void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if it fails to provide fair notice of what conduct is prohibited and lacks reasonably clear guidelines for law enforcement, thus permitting arbitrary and discriminatory application.
Facts:
- Valerie Goguen wore a small cloth version of the United States flag, approximately four by six inches, sewn to the seat of his blue jeans.
- On January 30, 1970, a police officer in Leominster, Massachusetts, observed Goguen standing and talking with a group of people on a public street.
- Goguen and the group were not engaged in any demonstration or protest, and no breach of the peace occurred.
- When the officer approached Goguen to question him, other people present laughed.
- A second police officer later observed Goguen in the same attire walking in the city's downtown business district.
Procedural Posture:
- A police officer swore out a complaint against Goguen in Worcester County Superior Court (a state trial court), charging him with publicly treating the U.S. flag contemptuously.
- A jury found Goguen guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to six months in prison.
- Goguen appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the state's highest court), which affirmed the conviction.
- After beginning his sentence, Goguen filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- The U.S. District Court granted the writ, holding that the Massachusetts statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
- The Sheriff of Worcester County (Smith) appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment on both the vagueness and overbreadth grounds.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Massachusetts statute that makes it a criminal offense to publicly 'treat contemptuously' the flag of the United States violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it is unconstitutionally vague?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Powell
Yes, the Massachusetts statute violates the Due Process Clause because the phrase 'treats contemptuously' is unconstitutionally vague. The statute fails to provide fair notice to citizens regarding what conduct is forbidden, forcing people of common intelligence to guess at its meaning. More importantly, it lacks any ascertainable standards for enforcement, allowing police, prosecutors, and juries to impose their own subjective preferences and leading to the risk of arbitrary and discriminatory law enforcement. Because the statute implicates First Amendment rights, it demands a greater degree of specificity, which the standardless sweep of this language fails to provide.
Concurring - Mr. Justice White
While I concur in the judgment, I disagree that the statute is unconstitutionally vague; Goguen's conduct of sewing a flag to the seat of his pants is clearly contemptuous. The statute is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The 'treats contemptuously' provision does not protect the physical integrity of the flag but instead punishes the communication of an idea of contempt. Since the government cannot punish disrespectful spoken or written words about the flag, as established in Street v. New York, it cannot punish expressive conduct that communicates the same message. Therefore, the conviction punishes communication and violates the First Amendment.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Blackmun
No, the statute is not unconstitutional. I agree with Justice White that the statute is not vague but disagree that Goguen's conviction violates the First Amendment. The Massachusetts court's decision, by distinguishing this case from one involving 'speech,' effectively limited the statute's scope to protecting the physical integrity of the flag. Goguen’s act of affixing the flag to the seat of his pants harmed its physical integrity, and his punishment for this conduct was constitutionally permissible.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No, the statute does not violate the Due Process Clause. I agree with Justice White that the law is not unconstitutionally vague, as it can be reasonably construed to prohibit acts that involve physical contact with the flag. Furthermore, the statute does not violate the First Amendment. The state has a substantial and legitimate interest in preserving the physical integrity of the flag as a unique symbol of nationhood. This interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression and outweighs the marginal communicative element of Goguen's conduct.
Analysis:
This decision is a cornerstone of the void-for-vagueness doctrine, particularly in cases implicating First Amendment freedoms. By striking down the statute, the Court affirmed that laws regulating expression must be drafted with sufficient clarity to prevent both a chilling effect on protected speech and arbitrary enforcement by authorities. The case left open the question of how a state might constitutionally protect the flag from desecration but established that a broad prohibition on 'contemptuous' treatment fails to meet due process standards. It underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring legislatures, not law enforcement, define the boundaries of criminal conduct.
Unlock the full brief for Smith v. Goguen