United States v. Eichman: Difference between revisions
Indubitably (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by 165.138.79.11 to last version by Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (HG) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
The case involved a challenge to the 1989 [[Flag Protection Act]], which forbade the burning or other desecration of the [[American flag]], while allowing for burning as a means of proper disposal of worn or soiled flags. The Act was passed in response to the Court's controversial 1989 decision in ''[[Texas v. Johnson]]'', 491 U.S. 397 (1989), which upheld flag burning as an act of protected speech under the First Amendment. |
The case involved a challenge to the 1989 [[Flag Protection Act]], which forbade the burning or other desecration of the [[American flag]], while allowing for burning as a means of proper disposal of worn or soiled flags. The Act was passed in response to the Court's controversial 1989 decision in ''[[Texas v. Johnson]]'', 491 U.S. 397 (1989), which upheld flag burning as an act of protected speech under the First Amendment. |
||
The defendants in ''Eichman'', Shawn Eichman, [[Dave Blalock]] and Scott Tyler, had burned |
The defendants in ''Eichman'', Shawn Eichman, [[Dave Blalock]] and Scott Tyler (along with Gregory "Joey" Johnson, who was not arrested), had burned American flags on the steps of the [[United States Capitol]] to protest American foreign and domestic policy. In the jointly decided case, Mark Haggerty, Carlos Garza, Jennifer Campbell, and Darius Strong were charged (based on surveillance photos) for burning a flag at a mass demonstration in [[Seattle, Washington|Seattle]] [Washington]] on the stroke of midnight when the Flag Protection Act went into effect. |
||
Federal District Courts in both cases ("Eichman" and "Haggerty") dismissed the charges on the basis of the unconstitutionality of the Flag Protection Act, relying on Texas v. Johnson. The government appealed both decisions. Under the terms of the Flag Protection Act, the appeals went directly to the Supreme Court (bypassing the Courts of Appeal. The Supreme Court was required to hear these appeals, without the choice of whether to grant certiorari, and was required to hear them on an expedited basis. The Supreme Court therefore scheduled a special session for oral argument on these cases, which were joined on appeal and argued together case alone on May 14, 1990, long after the conclusion of its normal calendar of oral argument for the term. |
|||
In a 5-4 decision (with the justices voting the same way they did in ''Texas v. Johnson''), the Court reaffirmed ''Johnson'' and struck down the law against flag burning. Brennan stated in the Court's opinion that "Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering." |
In a 5-4 decision (with the justices voting the same way they did in ''Texas v. Johnson''), the Court reaffirmed ''Johnson'' and struck down the law against flag burning. Brennan stated in the Court's opinion that "Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering." |
||
The defendants were represented by attorneys [[William Kunstler]] and [[David D. Cole]]. The United States was represented by [[Kenneth Starr]], then Solicitor General. |
The defendants were represented in the Supreme Court by attorneys [[William Kunstler]] and [[David D. Cole]], with the oral argument conducted by Kunstler. The United States was represented by [[Kenneth Starr]], then Solicitor General. |
||
The defendants in the Washington, DC case -- Eichman, Blalock, and Tyler -- had been charged only with flag desecration. The defendants in the Seattle case -- Haggerty, Garza, Campbell, and Strong -- had also been charged with destruction of government property, since one of the flags they were accused of burning was alleged to have been stolen from the Capital Hill (Seattle) Post Office. On remand following the Supreme Court decision upholding the dismisssal of the flag desecration charge, the four Seattle defendants pled guilty to the surviving charge of destruction of government property. All four were fined various amounts, and Garza and Strong, who had prior convictions on other charges, were sentenced to three days each in jail. |
|||
== See also == |
== See also == |
||
| Line 69: | Line 73: | ||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
*[http://www. |
*[http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_1433/ US vs. Eichman] audio recording of oral argument, May 14, 1990 |
||
*[http://www.esquilax.com/flag/eichman.html US vs. Eichman] full text of the opinion |
|||
*[http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=US_v_Eichman First Amendment Library entry] on ''Eichman v. United States'' |
*[http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=US_v_Eichman First Amendment Library entry] on ''Eichman v. United States'' |
||
*[http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Street_v_NY ''Street v. New York''] |
*[http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Street_v_NY ''Street v. New York''] |
||
Revision as of 04:54, 23 December 2008
| United States v. Eichman | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | ||||||||
| Argued May 14, 1990 Decided June 11, 1990 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||
| The government's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol did not outweigh the individual right to disparage that symbol through expressive conduct. | ||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||
| U.S. Const. Amend. I |
United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as violative of free speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution. It was argued together with the case United States v. Haggerty.
The case involved a challenge to the 1989 Flag Protection Act, which forbade the burning or other desecration of the American flag, while allowing for burning as a means of proper disposal of worn or soiled flags. The Act was passed in response to the Court's controversial 1989 decision in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), which upheld flag burning as an act of protected speech under the First Amendment.
The defendants in Eichman, Shawn Eichman, Dave Blalock and Scott Tyler (along with Gregory "Joey" Johnson, who was not arrested), had burned American flags on the steps of the United States Capitol to protest American foreign and domestic policy. In the jointly decided case, Mark Haggerty, Carlos Garza, Jennifer Campbell, and Darius Strong were charged (based on surveillance photos) for burning a flag at a mass demonstration in Seattle [Washington]] on the stroke of midnight when the Flag Protection Act went into effect.
Federal District Courts in both cases ("Eichman" and "Haggerty") dismissed the charges on the basis of the unconstitutionality of the Flag Protection Act, relying on Texas v. Johnson. The government appealed both decisions. Under the terms of the Flag Protection Act, the appeals went directly to the Supreme Court (bypassing the Courts of Appeal. The Supreme Court was required to hear these appeals, without the choice of whether to grant certiorari, and was required to hear them on an expedited basis. The Supreme Court therefore scheduled a special session for oral argument on these cases, which were joined on appeal and argued together case alone on May 14, 1990, long after the conclusion of its normal calendar of oral argument for the term.
In a 5-4 decision (with the justices voting the same way they did in Texas v. Johnson), the Court reaffirmed Johnson and struck down the law against flag burning. Brennan stated in the Court's opinion that "Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering."
The defendants were represented in the Supreme Court by attorneys William Kunstler and David D. Cole, with the oral argument conducted by Kunstler. The United States was represented by Kenneth Starr, then Solicitor General.
The defendants in the Washington, DC case -- Eichman, Blalock, and Tyler -- had been charged only with flag desecration. The defendants in the Seattle case -- Haggerty, Garza, Campbell, and Strong -- had also been charged with destruction of government property, since one of the flags they were accused of burning was alleged to have been stolen from the Capital Hill (Seattle) Post Office. On remand following the Supreme Court decision upholding the dismisssal of the flag desecration charge, the four Seattle defendants pled guilty to the surviving charge of destruction of government property. All four were fined various amounts, and Garza and Strong, who had prior convictions on other charges, were sentenced to three days each in jail.
See also
External links
- US vs. Eichman audio recording of oral argument, May 14, 1990
- US vs. Eichman full text of the opinion
- First Amendment Library entry on Eichman v. United States
- Street v. New York
- Texas v. Johnson