Texas Vs Johnson Case Summary

The central issue in the Stromberg case was whether the state of California violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment by making it illegal to display red flags that suggested support of organizations that dissented organized government or favored anarchic action (Communism). This case was a significant landmark in constitutional law because of the Court’s use of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect a First Amendment right, symbolic speech, from state infringement. It impacted American society in a positive way because it expanded the freedoms in the First amendment and created the doctrine that would be used in cases involving subjects like American flag and draft card burning. The Supreme Court ruled accurately, the government cannot outlaw speech or expressive conduct because it disapproves the ideas expressed. “Nonverbal expressive activity can be banned because of the action it entails, but not the ideas it expresses.” (pg.25)

“American Flag Stands for Tolerance”, an article based on the Johnson case, focuses on “a person has a right to express disagreement with governmental policies”(line2). The author of this article focused on the meaning of freedom. In line 65, the author states, “the flag stands for free expression of ideas...The ultimate irony would have been to punish views expressed by burning the flag that stands for the right to those expressions”, meaning it would be pointless to punish those who petulantly burned the flag as an expression of their thoughts, when they have the freedom to express their

Flag Burning can be and usually is a very controversial issue. Many people are offended by the thought of destroying this country's symbol of liberty and freedom. During a political protest during the 1984 Republican Convention, Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested for burning an American flag. Years later in 1989, Johnson got the decision overturned by the United States Supreme Court. In the same year, the state of Texas passed the Flag Protection Act, which prohibited any form of desecration against the American flag. This act provoked many people to protest and burn flags anyway. Two protestors, Shawn Eichman and Mark Haggerty were charged with violating the law and arrested. Both Eichman and Haggerty appealed the

In Walker III v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015), attorney Scott Keller argues on behalf of the petitioner—Walker III (Walker)—and attorney Roger George represents the respondent—Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV). The case concerns the constitutionality of a decision made by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board (the DMV Board) to reject the specialty license plate designs submitted by SCV and its members, and addresses possible violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendment. Four contentions surround the issue: the form of speech embodied by the specialty license plate program; State control over the content of specialty license plates; specialty license plates as a limited public forum; and, ultimately, the potential violation of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “viewpoint neutrality.” Justice Breyer delivers the opinion of the Court, affirming the plates as government speech. However, Justice Alito, joined by the Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy, Justice Alito dissents, concerned with. the Court’s broad interpretation of government speech.

In the Court’s highly fragmented decision, the justices attempted to define a proper balance of and boundary between federal and state authority: by arguing that state action constituted only those acts sanctioned by the state’s laws and by dismissing Section 20 for vagueness, the major block of dissenters suggested that the risk posed to state autonomy by federal intervention was too great; by recognizing the defendants’ actions as those perpetrated “under color of law” and by creating a “willful” test for acts under Section 20, the majority Opinion affirmed the federal government’s interest in protecting the rights of citizens from abuse by state authority, but provided it with a tenuous means for defending those liberties.

In Walker III v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015), the Supreme Court concerns itself with the constitutionality of a decision by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board (the DMV Board) to reject the specialty license plate designs submitted by SCV and its members, and the Court addresses possible violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendment. Attorney Scott Keller appears for Walker, the petitioner, and attorney Roger George represents the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), the respondent. Four issues permeate the case: specialty license plates’ relevant form of speech; State control over the content of specialty license plates; specialty license plates as a limited public forum; and, ultimately, the potential violation of both the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “viewpoint neutrality.” In a divisive 5-4 decision, Justice Breyer delivers the Court’s opinion, while Justice Alito, joined by the Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy, dissents, concerned with the Court’s interpretation of government speech and the precedent it sets.

The case chosen for this research paper is the case of Lawrence V. Texas. In Houston, Texas police officers were dispatched to a private home, responding to a report of weapon disturbance. Inside the home they found John Lawrence and Tyron Garner engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. The two men were arrested and held overnight and charged with violating Texas law, specifically Texas law made the act of two people of the same sex engaging in certain intimate sexual conduct illegal. The two men were then convicted before a Justice of Peace. Lawrence V. Texas asks the question of whether the criminal convictions of Lawrence and Garner under the “Homosexual Conduct” law of Texas was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was argued

The issue of flag desecration has been and continues to be a highly controversial issue; on the one side there are those who believe that the flag is a unique symbol for our nation which should be preserved at all costs, while on the other are those who believe that flag burning is a form of free speech and that any legislation designed to prevent this form of expression is contrary to the ideals of the First Amendment to our Constitution. Shawn Eichman, as well as the majority of the United States Supreme Court, is in the latter of these groups. Many citizens believe that the freedom of speech granted to them in the First Amendment means that they can express themselves in any manner they wish as long as their right of

In 1984 in front of the Dallas City Hall during the Republican National Convention, respondent Gregory Lee Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest the policies of the Reagan administrations and some Dallas-bound corporations. Johnson proceeded with burning an American flag in protest against the policies, where Reagan sought to stimulate the economy with large tax cuts. Johnson was tried and convicted, under Texas law, of the desecration of a venerated object. The State Court of Appeals affirmed the actions, until the case advanced to the Supreme Court after the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the State (consistent with the First Amendment) could not punish Johnson

These acts of conduct are done to express and idea and are therefore considered free speech. At the time of Johnson’s burning of the flag he was clearly expressing elements of communication. At trial, Johnson stated that the reason for his flag burning: “The flag was burned as Ronal Regan was being re-nominated 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.” The Supreme Court decided that this action was an expression of an idea and not an act of aggression to provoke violence. Therefore since it was an act of speech, Johnson was protected by the First Amendment and his conviction was in violation of the Constitution. The dissenting members of the court said that the flag is a sacred part of America. Congress set forth laws on the specific design and construction of the flag. This shows the reverence and respect that should be shown to the flag. They also wrote that in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire the court stated: “it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all

In Walker III v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Supreme Court concerns itself with the constitutionality of a decision by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board (the DMV Board) to reject the specialty license plate designs submitted by the Sons of Confederate Veterans (the SCV) and its members, Accordingly, the case addresses matters pertaining to the First and Fourteenth Amendment. With attorney Scott Keller representing Walker—petitioner—and attorney Roger George representing the SCV—respondent—four issues surround the case: the type of speech expressed through specialty license plates; the State’s discriminatory power over its specialty license plate program; the creation of a limited public forum; and, ultimately,

In the two texts Texas vs. Johnson Majority Opinion by: William Brennan and American Flag Stands For Tolerance by: Ronald J. Allen they both started with the same cause but different point which I will cover in this paragraph. In both selections, it started from a guy named Gregory Lee Johnson burning the American flag. Also In both texts they both showed that flag burning was allowed but should not be tolerated. But in Brennan's text he uses a precious and careful tone “The way to preserve the flag’s special role is not to punish those who feel different about these matters. It is persuade them that they are wrong” Brennan,16. Where as in Allens text its more opinion based as expected “The American flag is cherished symbol of our national

In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, the defendant Gregory Johnson and the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade protested the Reagan administration policies. During this protest, Johnson burned an American flag on the steps of city hall. Johnson was arrested, tried, and convicted of violating a Texas law that outlawed the desecration or destruction of the United States flag. Johnson was sentenced to one year in jail and had to pay a $2,000 fine. Johnson appealed the conviction stating that the Texas law was a violation of his first amendment right to freedom of speech. He lost his first appeal in the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas. However, his second appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction. Texas then

The subjectivity of a Supreme Court justice’s interpretation of the Constitution can sometimes create some fogginess. Such is the case when speaking of R.A.V v City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) and Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003); Two identical cases, with the issue of cross burning and the question free-speech at the center of the arguments, yet two different rulings were handed down. In short, the nuances of the cases are what ultimately led to the different rulings, but let us take a more in-depth look at how the cases were decided.

A teenage girl’s senior prom was ruined because the teachers didn’t like her confederate flag dress. The girl’s constitutional rights were violated. She has freedom of speech and can express her opinion in any way she wants. The only time freedom of speech can be abridged is if you are threatening someone. Wearing a dress of the confederate flag doesn’t harm anyone around her. The teachers claimed it could disrupt the students and if it disrupted or offended someone that person could’ve left at any time. Even though others might not like the confederate flag she shouldn’t have missed the only senior prom she will ever have. The U.S. Supreme Court needs to redress the issue on if students can wear clothing with the confederate flag.