What was the reasoning of the decisions made in the court case Texas v. Johnson?

Answer 1

Short Case Summary

In 1984, Gregory Johnson participated in a political rally during the Republican National Convention, which was held in Dallas that year. He and other protesters distributed literature and made speeches denouncing President Reagan's "War Chest" policies. The crowd marched through the streets and staged "die-ins" on the grounds of several corporations known to support the Reagan administration.

The tour concluded in front of Dallas City Hall, where Johnson unfurled an American flag, doused it with kerosene and set it on fire while the crowd chanted, "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you."

Johnson was subsequently arrested and convicted under a Texas law that prohibited intentionally and knowingly desecrating a state or national flag, fined $2,000, and sentenced to one year in jail.

Johnson appealed his case to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, which reversed the lower court ruling on the grounds that Johnson could not be punished for expressive conduct protected under the First Amendment. The Court concluded that the State could not sanction flag burning in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity.

In a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Criminal Appeals' verdict. Justice William Brennan delivered the majority opinion.

Supreme Court Reasoning

1. The state of Texas acknowledged Johnson's flag burning constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment. Timing the demonstration to coincide with the Republican National Convention makes it overwhelmingly apparent the burning was intended as political protest. The First Amendment protects expressive political speech ("expressive" speech is understood as an action representing an opinion, even if no words are used).
2. Justice Brennan: "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."
3. Texas' argument was that people were offended, and the police feared a riot would break out. However, the protest was peaceful. The state can prevent "imminent lawless action," but there was no reason to anticipate such was about to occur.
4. Justice Brennan: "The Government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable, even where our flag is involved. Nor may a State foster its own view of the flag by prohibiting expressive conduct relating to it, since the Government may not permit designated symbols to be used to communicate a limited set of messages. Moreover, this Court will not create an exception to these principles protected by the First Amendment for the American flag alone." and
5. "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable . . . the constitutionally guaranteed 'freedom to be intellectually . . . diverse or even contrary,' and the 'right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order,' encompass the freedom to express publicly one's opinions about our flag, including those opinions which are defiant or contemptuous."
6. Texas cannot limit expressive action simply because it has a patriotic interest in maintaining the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity.
7. Justice Brennan: "If he had burned the flag as a means of disposing of it because it was dirty or torn, he would not have been convicted of flag desecration under this Texas law: federal law designates burning as the preferred means of disposing of a flag "when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display," 36 U.S.C. § 176(k), and Texas has no quarrel with this means of disposal. Brief for Petitioner 45. The Texas law is thus not aimed at protecting the physical integrity of the flag in all circumstances, but is designed instead to protect it only against impairments that would cause serious offense to others."
8. Justice Brennan: " We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."

Case Citation:

Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397 (1989)

For more information on Texas v. Johnson and flag desecration, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 2

Texas v. Johnson was an appeal by the state of Texas to have an overturned conviction reinstated. The overturning was upheld by the Supreme Court by a 5-4 majority maintaining, consistent with the decisions of previous cases such as Stromberg and Tinker, that "free speech" was not limited to the spoken word.

Background

During a protest march, a US flag had been obtained from the building of a company targeted by the protest. It was handed to Gregory Lee Johnson. Upon reaching Dallas City Hall, Johnson poured kerosene on the flag and lit it.

Previous Judgments

He was arrested and charged under a Texas law that prohibited vandalizing a respected object (as the flag is). His conviction meant a $2000 fine and one year in prison.

He appealed to the Fifth Court of Appeals for Texas, but lost this appeal.

He then appealed this judgment to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and won this appeal: the Court's judgment was based on the First Amendment right to free speech. The state then made its appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the second appeal's decision. Johnson had a right to burn the flag as a political statement, and the state's interest in "maintaining order and union, and respect for the flag" was not good enough to convict him. The Court declared the law unconstitutional. This also affected laws in 47 other states at the time, all of which were now unenforceable.

Case Citation:

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Answer 3

The decision in Texas v. Johnson didn't have a significant impact on society, other than (generally) making flag desecration a legally accepted expression of civil disobedience no longer punishable by statute, and establishing another point of contention between increasingly polarized conservative and progressive political factions.

Those opposed to flag desecration pressed Congress to take action by passing the Flag Protection Act of 1989, a federal law legislated in defiance of the Texas v. Johnson, (1989) ruling. This law was subsequently overturned in the Supreme Court case United States v. Eichman, 496 US 310 (1990).

Flag burning remains a relatively infrequent form of political protest, but the battle between protecting the flag as a national symbol and protecting freedom of expression granted in the Bill of Rights is ongoing.

In February 2009, a Sarpy County, Nebraska, judge denied a Kansas woman the opportunity to challenge Nebraska's anti-desecration law, which remains on the books despite the US Supreme Court ruling.

Case Citation:

Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397 (1989)

For more information on Texas v. Johnson, (1989) and other Supreme Court flag-desecration cases, see Related Links, below.