United States v. Eichman
496 U.S. 310 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal law criminalizing the desecration of the United States flag is unconstitutional as it suppresses expressive conduct based on its communicative impact, thereby violating the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
Facts:
- In response to the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson, the U.S. Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989.
- A group of individuals (appellees), while protesting aspects of the U.S. Government's domestic and foreign policy, knowingly set fire to several U.S. flags on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.
- In a separate incident in Seattle, another group of individuals (appellees) protested the passage of the Flag Protection Act itself.
- During the Seattle protest, these individuals also knowingly set fire to a U.S. flag.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States prosecuted a group of individuals in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for violating the Flag Protection Act of 1989.
- The United States separately prosecuted another group of individuals in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington for violating the same Act.
- In both cases, the defendants (appellees) moved to dismiss the charges, arguing the Act was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
- Both the D.C. District Court and the Washington District Court, as courts of first instance, granted the motions, holding the Act unconstitutional as applied and dismissing the charges.
- The United States (appellant) appealed both decisions directly to the Supreme Court of the United States, which consolidated the cases.
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 the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which criminalizes knowingly mutilating, defacing, burning, or trampling upon a United States flag, violate the First Amendment's protection of free speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 violates the First Amendment. Although the Act does not explicitly target the content of a message, the government's asserted interest in protecting the 'physical integrity' of the flag is inherently related to the suppression of expression. The government's interest is only implicated when a person's treatment of the flag communicates a message inconsistent with the ideals the flag represents. The Act's language, which criminalizes actions that connote disrespect (e.g., 'defiles,' 'tramples') while exempting respectful disposal of worn flags, confirms its focus on the communicative impact of the conduct. Therefore, the Act is subject to 'the most exacting scrutiny' and, like the statute in Texas v. Johnson, cannot be justified by the government's interest in preserving the flag's symbolic value.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 does not violate the First Amendment. The government possesses a legitimate interest in protecting the symbolic value of the flag, an interest that is unrelated to the suppression of any particular idea a flag burner wishes to express. The Act prohibits a specific method of expression, not the ideas themselves, and protesters have numerous alternative means to convey their messages. The societal interest in preserving the flag as a unique and powerful national symbol outweighs an individual's interest in choosing this particular, destructive method of communication.
Analysis:
This decision solidified the precedent set in Texas v. Johnson, confirming that flag burning as a form of political protest is protected expressive conduct under the First Amendment. It established that even a seemingly content-neutral federal statute aimed at protecting the flag's physical integrity will be struck down if its underlying purpose is to suppress messages deemed disrespectful to the flag's symbolic value. The ruling reinforced the principle that the government cannot mandate respect for national symbols by punishing those who express dissent through them, significantly limiting Congress's ability to legislate against flag desecration.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Eichman