Texas Vs Johnson Case Summary

Texas v. Johnson Case Brief
Citation: Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S 397, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342, 1989
Procedural Background: Johnson was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000 for burning the American flag. He appealed his conviction to the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas, but he lost this appeal. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals would then see his case. That court overturned his conviction, saying that the State could not punish Johnson for burning the flag because the First Amendment protects such activity as symbolic speech.
Facts: Johnson was participating in a political protest in Dallas, Texas. When the demonstration got to City Hall, Johnson burned the American flag while the demonstrators chanted “America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you.” Many witnesses were offended by the flag burning. Johnson was arrested for violating Texas law that says it’s

illegal to vandalize respected objects, i.e. the American flag. The Court of Appeals overturned the conviction.
Legal Issues: 1. Does flag burning constitute “symbolic speech” protected by the First Amendment? 2. Is there a compelling state interest in restricting this form of expression, warranting limited application of the First Amendment under the O'Brien test?
Decision/Holding of the Court: 1. Yes 2. No
Reasoning of the Court: 1.

the majority of the Court, said that flag burning does constitute a form of “symbolic speech” that the First Amendment protects. Freedom of Speech protects actions that people in society may find extremely offensive. However, even though people in society are offended it is not justification to suppress the person doing the offending free speech. 2. Under the O'Brien test, government can regulate non-speech when they have great interest, but not if the interest is simply the suppression of freedom of speech. The State interest in this case was preventing the breaches of peace and preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity. No breach of peace actually occurred, but the State argued that people taking offense was enough reason to limit speech as a potential threat. Legitimizing "potential" threats would invalidate the Brandenburg v. Ohio precedent that limits only likely or actual breaches of peace. Moreover, threats to the integrity of the flag's symbolism count as expressive, placing them outside the scope of

O'Brien.
Disposition: Affirmed
Historical Importance: Texas v. Johnson was one of a series of flag desecration cases challenging state and federal statutes prohibiting burning or otherwise damaging a flag, as a violation of First Amendment protection of freedom of speech and political expression. When the US Supreme Court upheld the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas it struck down the Texas statute as unconstitutional. The battle between protecting the flag as a national symbol and protecting freedom of expression granted in the Bill of Rights is ongoing.