Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
Texas v. Johnson
 | |
| Texas v. Johnson | |
| Reference: 88 US 155 | |
| Term: 1989 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: Mar 21, 1989 Decided: Jun 21, 1989 | |
| Outcome | |
| Texas Supreme Court reversed | |
| Majority | |
| Harry Blackmun • William J. Brennan • Thurgood Marshall • Lewis Powell • Antonin Scalia | |
| Concurring | |
| Anthony Kennedy | |
| Dissenting | |
| Sandra Day O'Connor • John Stevens • Chief Justice William Rehnquist • Byron White | |
Texas v. Johnson is a case decided on June 21, 1989, in which the Supreme Court of the United States held (5-4) that any state law criminalizing the desecration of the American flag violates the First Amendment.[1]
Why it matters: The Supreme Court's ruling invalidated state prohibitions against desecrating the American flag. Forty-eight out of the 50 states had laws that punished burning the American flag, and the court's judicial review in this case declared those laws an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech. To read more about the legacy of Texas v. Johnson click here. [2]
Background
Political demonstration
On August 22, 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, marched in a political demonstration and protest against the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. The protests included marches through the streets, sit-ins to protest and dramatize the effects of nuclear war, spray painting walls, and knocking over plants and other personal property. Johnson did not take part in the former activities because he was participating in the march toward Dallas City Hall. [2]
As the march reached the Mercantile Bank Building protesters removed the American flag from the flagpole outside and an unknown protestor gave the flag to Johnson, who proceeded to hide the flag under his shirt. When the protesters reached Dallas City Hall, Johnson poured kerosene on the flag and set it on fire. No one was injured during the protest, and Johnson was arrested within an hour of the demonstration.
Johnson was charged with violating Texas' state statute outlawing flag desecration and prohibiting the vandalism of venerated objects. Johnson was the only demonstrator at the protest to be criminally charged.
Judicial proceedings
On December 13, 1984, a jury of six persons found Johnson guilty of flag desecration and he was sentenced to one year in jail and fined $2,000. Johnson appealed his conviction to the Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals where he was again found guilty. He then appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, one of Texas' two courts of last resort.[3]
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned his conviction, finding that his First Amendment rights had been violated. The court wrote that Johnson's conduct was symbolic speech, which did not constitute a breach of the peace:
| “ | A government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol. | ” |
Texas filed a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court asking them to review the case. In 1988 the Supreme Court granted certiorari
Oral argument
Oral argument was held on March 20, 1989. The case was decided on June 21, 1989.[1]
Decision
The Supreme Court decided 5-4 in favor of Johnson on June 21, 1989. The majority ruled that flags prohibiting the burning of the American flag violated Johnson's freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment and incorporated into the states by the Fourteenth Amendment[1]
Justice William J. Brennan wrote for the five-justice majority and was joined by Harry Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis Powell, and Antonin Scalia.
Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a concurring opinion.
Justice William Rehnquist wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Byron White.[1]
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion.[1]
Opinions
Majority opinion
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Texas' state law outlawing the burning of the American flag violated Johnson's right to free speech protected by the First Amendment. Justice Brennan authored the majority opinion and was joined by justices Blackmun, Kennedy, Marshall, and Scalia. Justice Kennedy also authored a concurring opinion.[1]
In the majority opinion, Justice Brennan wrote that the First Amendment protects non-speech acts as symbolic speech. Brennan said that flags are vessels for symbolic speech, as was established in the case Stromberg v. California (1931), which overturned the conviction of a youth camp worker who displayed a socialist flag. Brennan also cited the case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) in which the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protected wearing a black armband as a form of symbolic speech. In the vein of this caselaw, the majority sought to analyze whether John's burning of the American flag constituted expressive conduct that would allow him to invoke the First Amendment
Brennan wrote that because the state conceded that Johnson's conduct was expressive, the court had to consider whether or not the state of Texas had a compelling governmental interest in prohibiting Johnson's expression due to likely breaches of the public peace.
The majority held that Johnson was not liable for a breach of the peace. Justice Brennan wrote, "no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur because Johnson burned the flag."[3] Rather, a protest and disturbance were already occuring when the flag was stolen and when Johnson ignited it. The state of Texas argued that flag burning was punishable on the basis that it intends to incite breaches of the peace, but Justice Brennan wrote that flag burning does not necessarily always lead to breaches of the peace.
Justice Brennan cited Bradenburg v. Ohio and wrote that the state may only punish speech that would incite imminent lawless action, and he rejected that flag burning constituted imminent lawless action.[5]
The majority opinion answered Rehnquist's uniqueness claim as follows:
| “ | We have not recognized an exception to [First Amendment protections] even where our flag has been involved. . . . There is, moreover, no indication—either in the text of the Constitution or in our cases interpreting it—that a separate juridical category exists for the American flag alone. . . .We decline, therefore, to create for the flag an exception to the joust of principles protected by the First Amendment. | ” |
Rehnquist also wrote that the burning of a flag was not speech because it was not related to the exposition of ideas. He called burning the flag "the equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar that, it seems fair to say, is most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others."[3]
Concurring opinion
Justice Kennedy filed a concurring opinion and emphasized that, while he did not like the outcome of the case "The outcome can be laid at no door but ours."[3] He also said, "The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result. And so great is our commitment to the process that, except in the rare case, we do not pause to express distaste for the result, perhaps for fear of undermining a valued principle that dictates the decision. This is one of those rare cases."[3]
Dissenting opinions
Rehnquist dissent
Justice William Rehnquist wrote a dissent and was joined by Justices Byron White and Sandra Day O'Connor. Justice Rehnquist wrote that the American flag holds a unique position that justifies a prohibition against burning it in the way that Johnson did.
| “ | The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another 'idea' or 'point of view' competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag. | ” |
Stevens dissent
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion that argued the flag is a proud symbol of the country and its value cannot be measured. Stevens also argued that the case had nothing to do with ideas but with conduct, and therefore Johnson's conduct should not be protected by the First Amendment
| “ | [The American Flag] is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for other peoples who share our aspirations. . . . The value of the flag as a symbol cannot be measured. . . .The case has nothing to do with 'disagreeable ideas.' It involves disagreeable conduct that, in my opinion, diminishes the value of an important national asset. | ” |
Legacy
The Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson invalidated 48 state laws against desecrating the American flag. In 1989 Congress passed the Flag Protection Act, making it a federal crime to desecrate the flag.[1] In 1990 the Supreme Court case United States v. Eichman struck down the Flag Protection Act. The same five-justice majority ruled in Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman.
Because the court has overruled state laws banning flag burning, Congress has considered a Flag Desecration Amendment to the Constitution several times. The most recent attempt was in 2006 with the Senate Joint Resolution 12 which failed by one vote on June 27, 2006.[6]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Oyez, Texas v. Johnson, accessed August 3, 2022
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 MTSU, Texas v. Johnson, accessed August 3, 2022 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "MTSU" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Justia, Texas v. Johnson accessed August 4, 2022
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Britannica, Texas v. Johnson accessed August 9, 2022
- ↑ Tribune-Democrat, First Amendment accessed August 10, 2022
| ||||||||||||||||||||
