Case Name: Texas v. Johnson
Year: Argued 1989 ; Decided 1989
Result: 5-4 in favor of Johnson
Related Constitutional Issue/ Amendment: 1st Amendment dealing with speech, press, and assembly
Civil Rights of Civil Liberties: Civil Liberties
Significance/ Precedent: The court stated that Johnson burning the flag was just seen as a way of expression. Also, state officials did not have the authority to designate symbols to be used to communicate only limited sets of messages. As long as it is that persons flag, that one person can burn it.
Quote from Majority Opinion: “After publicly burning an American flag as a means of political protest, Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted of desecrating a flag in violation of Texas law. This case presents the question whether his conviction is consistent with the First Amendment. We hold that it is not… We must first determine whether Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment in challenging his conviction. If his conduct was expressive, we next decide whether the State's regulation is related to the suppression of free expression. If the State's regulation is not related to expression, then the less stringent standard we announced in United States v. O'Brien for regulations of noncommunicative conduct controls. If it is, then we are outside of O'Brien's test, and we must ask whether this interest justifies Johnson's conviction under a more demanding standard. A third possibility is that the State's asserted interest is simply not implicated on these facts, and in that event the interest drops out of the picture… Johnson burned an American flag as part-- indeed, as the culmination -- of a political demonstration that coincided with the convening of the Republican Party and its renomination of Ronald Reagan for President. The expressive, overtly political nature of this conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent. At his trial, Johnson explained his reasons for burning the flag as follows: "The American Flag was burned as Ronald Reagan was being renominated as President. And a more powerful statement of symbolic speech, whether you agree with it or not, couldn't have been made at that time. It's quite a just position [juxtaposition]. We had new patriotism and no patriotism." In these circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag was conduct "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication," to implicate the First Amendment… Johnson was convicted for engaging in expressive conduct. The State's interest in preventing breaches of the peace does not support his conviction becauseJohnson's conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace. Nor does the State's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity justify his criminal conviction for engaging in political expression. The judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is therefore affirmed."
6-Word Summary: Burning the flag can be permitted
Year: Argued 1989 ; Decided 1989
Result: 5-4 in favor of Johnson
Related Constitutional Issue/ Amendment: 1st Amendment dealing with speech, press, and assembly
Civil Rights of Civil Liberties: Civil Liberties
Significance/ Precedent: The court stated that Johnson burning the flag was just seen as a way of expression. Also, state officials did not have the authority to designate symbols to be used to communicate only limited sets of messages. As long as it is that persons flag, that one person can burn it.
Quote from Majority Opinion: “After publicly burning an American flag as a means of political protest, Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted of desecrating a flag in violation of Texas law. This case presents the question whether his conviction is consistent with the First Amendment. We hold that it is not… We must first determine whether Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment in challenging his conviction. If his conduct was expressive, we next decide whether the State's regulation is related to the suppression of free expression. If the State's regulation is not related to expression, then the less stringent standard we announced in United States v. O'Brien for regulations of noncommunicative conduct controls. If it is, then we are outside of O'Brien's test, and we must ask whether this interest justifies Johnson's conviction under a more demanding standard. A third possibility is that the State's asserted interest is simply not implicated on these facts, and in that event the interest drops out of the picture… Johnson burned an American flag as part-- indeed, as the culmination -- of a political demonstration that coincided with the convening of the Republican Party and its renomination of Ronald Reagan for President. The expressive, overtly political nature of this conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent. At his trial, Johnson explained his reasons for burning the flag as follows: "The American Flag was burned as Ronald Reagan was being renominated as President. And a more powerful statement of symbolic speech, whether you agree with it or not, couldn't have been made at that time. It's quite a just position [juxtaposition]. We had new patriotism and no patriotism." In these circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag was conduct "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication," to implicate the First Amendment… Johnson was convicted for engaging in expressive conduct. The State's interest in preventing breaches of the peace does not support his conviction becauseJohnson's conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace. Nor does the State's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity justify his criminal conviction for engaging in political expression. The judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is therefore affirmed."
6-Word Summary: Burning the flag can be permitted