Last updated 1 month ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
Burning the American flag as political protest is legal in the United States. The practice enjoys constitutional protection under the First Amendment, which the Supreme Court has ruled covers symbolic speech alongside written and spoken words.
This protection stems from two landmark Supreme Court decisions in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Both cases were decided by narrow 5-4 margins, reflecting divisions at the time over whether free speech rights should extend to acts some Americans find deeply offensive.
The Constitutional Foundation
The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” This protection forms a cornerstone of American democracy, designed to prevent government suppression of ideas and criticism, particularly of government policies.
The amendment’s protection isn’t absolute. Narrow categories of speech fall outside its scope, including direct incitement to imminent violence and true threats. But the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the First Amendment broadly when it comes to political expression, regardless of how unpopular or offensive that expression might be.
What Courts Consider Symbolic Speech
The Supreme Court has long recognized that First Amendment protection extends beyond words to actions that communicate ideas. This concept, known as “symbolic speech,” covers conduct that meets two criteria: there must be intent to convey a particular message, and there must be a strong likelihood that viewers will understand that message.
The Court has applied this standard to various forms of expression over the years. Students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War qualified as symbolic speech. So did attaching a peace sign to a flag or displaying a red flag as a political statement. Flag burning in the context of political protest fits squarely within these precedents.
The Flag’s Special Status in American Culture
The American flag holds a unique position in the nation’s culture that goes far beyond its function as a government symbol. For many Americans, the flag represents the embodiment of the nation itself—a symbol of unity, democratic ideals, and the sacrifices of military service members.
The flag’s design carries official meaning: red symbolizes valor and bravery, white represents purity and innocence, and blue stands for vigilance, perseverance, and justice. Supporters of legal protection for the flag often describe the “almost mystical reverence” with which millions of Americans regard it, viewing it as sacred rather than merely political.
This creates a fundamental conflict of values. Free speech advocates argue that the flag symbolizes the nation’s freedoms, including the freedom to treat that symbol with contempt. In this view, protecting flag burning strengthens the very principles the flag represents.
Those who want to ban flag burning see it differently. For them, the flag is the physical embodiment of the nation. Desecrating the physical object amounts to attacking the country itself—an act of hostility rather than legitimate political expression. This philosophical divide explains why the flag burning controversy generates such intense emotions and has proven so difficult to resolve.
The Supreme Court’s Landmark Rulings
Two closely related Supreme Court cases established the current legal status of flag burning. Both decisions were narrow 5-4 rulings that created immediate political firestorms and demonstrated the fundamental tensions within American constitutional law.
Texas v. Johnson: The First Decision
The legal battle began in 1984 outside the Republican National Convention in Dallas. During a political demonstration protesting Reagan administration policies, Gregory Lee Johnson doused an American flag with kerosene and set it on fire. As the flag burned, demonstrators chanted, “America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you.”
Several witnesses took offense to the display, but no violence occurred and no one was injured. Of roughly 100 protesters present, only Johnson was charged with a crime. Texas prosecuted him under a state law prohibiting desecration of “venerated objects.” He was convicted, sentenced to one year in jail, and fined $2,000.
The case reached the Supreme Court, which overturned Johnson’s conviction in a 5-4 decision in 1989. Justice William Brennan wrote the majority opinion, anchoring the decision in core constitutional principles.
“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment,” Brennan wrote, “it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
The Court found that Johnson’s act was clearly political in nature—”intentional and overwhelmingly apparent”—and that the government couldn’t mandate its own view of the flag by punishing those who treated it disrespectfully.
The majority identified a crucial flaw in the Texas law: it constituted “viewpoint discrimination.” The statute wasn’t neutral because it was designed to punish only actions toward the flag that would “seriously offend one or more persons.” This meant respectfully burning a worn-out flag during a disposal ceremony was legal, while burning it in protest was criminal.
The Court ruled this selective enforcement violated the First Amendment by favoring one message over another. The justices also rejected Texas’s argument that the law prevented breaches of the peace, noting that no disturbance had actually occurred and that the government can’t assume every provocative idea will incite riots.
The four dissenting justices, led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, argued that the flag’s unique status as “the visible symbol embodying our Nation” placed it in a special category deserving protection. Rehnquist wrote that “The flag is not simply another ‘idea’ or ‘point of view’ competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas.”
Justice John Paul Stevens filed a separate dissent arguing that the government’s interest in preserving the flag’s symbolic value outweighed the “trivial burden on free expression,” since protesters had countless other ways to voice their opposition.
Congressional Response and the Second Case
The Johnson decision triggered intense political backlash. The U.S. Senate passed a resolution expressing “profound disappointment” by a 97-3 vote. Congress immediately sought to circumvent the ruling with new legislation.
Lawmakers believed they had found a constitutional workaround. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 made it a federal crime to “mutilate, deface, physically defile, burn, maintain on the floor or ground, or trample upon” any U.S. flag.
The legislative strategy was to make the law “content-neutral” by removing language about causing “offense.” Congress argued it was no longer regulating the message but simply protecting the “physical integrity” of the flag as a national symbol, regardless of the actor’s intent. The law included an explicit exemption for disposal of worn or soiled flags.
Protesters immediately challenged the new law by burning flags on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. The issue quickly returned to the Supreme Court in United States v. Eichman.
In 1990, the Court struck down the federal statute with the same 5-4 alignment as Johnson. The majority was unpersuaded by Congress’s attempt to craft a “content-neutral” law.
Justice Brennan again wrote for the Court, reasoning that the government’s stated interest in protecting the flag’s “physical integrity” was still fundamentally about suppressing expression. The government’s interest, he wrote, is implicated “only when a person’s treatment of the flag communicates a message… that is inconsistent with the identified ideals.”
The distinction between allowing flag burning during respectful disposal ceremonies while prohibiting it during political protests showed the law was still discriminating based on message content. The Court concluded that the federal act “suffers from the same fundamental flaw” as the Texas law it was meant to replace.
These two decisions illustrate how the constitutional system of checks and balances works in practice. The judiciary’s ruling in Johnson prompted a legislative reaction designed to circumvent it. The judicial reaffirmation in Eichman strengthened the original principle and forced flag burning opponents onto the much more difficult path of amending the Constitution.
The Push for a Constitutional Amendment
With the Supreme Court having twice ruled that flag desecration bans violate the First Amendment, opponents were left with one option: changing the Constitution itself. The amendment process is intentionally difficult, requiring two-thirds votes in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification from three-fourths of states.
Since 1995, a proposed Flag Desecration Amendment has been a persistent feature of American politics. The House of Representatives has passed versions of the amendment multiple times with the necessary two-thirds majority. Members facing reelection every two years are often more responsive to popular sentiment on emotional issues like flag protection.
The Senate has proven more resistant. The amendment has repeatedly failed to achieve the required 67 votes. It came closest in 2006, falling just one vote short with a 66-34 tally.
This ongoing battle showcases the tension between majoritarian democracy and constitutional republicanism. Polls have consistently shown majority public support for banning flag burning. Resolutions from all 50 state legislatures have called for an amendment. Yet the Constitution’s structure has prevented this popular will from becoming law.
The supermajority requirement for amendments and the Senate’s role as a more deliberative body have protected a minority right—engaging in unpopular symbolic speech—from being overridden by majority sentiment. This represents the constitutional system working as designed to safeguard fundamental liberties.
Arguments Supporting the Amendment
Proponents include organizations like The American Legion and Citizens Flag Alliance, along with politicians such as former President George W. Bush and former Senator Orrin Hatch. They make several key arguments:
Restoring Traditional Authority: The amendment would simply restore the original understanding of the First Amendment and return to Congress and states the power they held for over 200 years to protect the flag. They point to overwhelming public support and state legislative resolutions as evidence that the Supreme Court usurped the people’s will.
Protecting Sacred Symbols: At its core, their argument is that the flag is a unique and sacred national symbol embodying national unity and veterans’ sacrifices. They view flag burning not as protected speech but as a deeply disrespectful “hateful tantrum” that damages the flag’s value and should be prohibited.
Arguments Against the Amendment
Opponents include the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and politicians such as Senator Patrick Leahy and the late Senator John Glenn. They counter with their own principles:
Protecting First Amendment Integrity: The amendment would mark the first time the Constitution has been altered to restrict freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. They believe American liberty’s strength is demonstrated by tolerating even offensive forms of expression.
Disproportionate Response: Critics argue that a constitutional amendment is a drastic overreaction to a problem that barely exists. Actual flag burning incidents are extremely rare, making the political effort disproportionate to the issue.
Vagueness and Unintended Consequences: The typically vague language of proposed amendments raises practical concerns. What legally constitutes a “flag”? Would it include images on T-shirts, napkins, or advertisements? What qualifies as “physical desecration”? Would it ban using the flag in art or wearing it as clothing? These ambiguities could create a chilling effect on expression and lead to arbitrary enforcement.
How the Law Actually Works
The legal landscape surrounding the American flag is widely misunderstood, largely due to confusion between the advisory U.S. Flag Code and enforceable criminal law. Understanding this distinction is essential to knowing what is and isn’t legally permissible.
The Flag Code vs. Criminal Law
The U.S. Flag Code appears in Title 4, Chapter 1 of the United States Code. It codifies long-standing customs and rules for showing proper respect to the flag.
The code provides guidance on displaying the flag, carrying it in parades, and what not to do with it. For example, it states the flag should never touch the ground, be used as wearing apparel or for advertising, or be displayed upside down except as a distress signal.
The most important fact about the Flag Code is that it’s advisory, not punitive. The code contains no penalties for violations and uses non-binding language like “should” rather than “must.” It’s a guide to etiquette, not criminal law.
This public misunderstanding—believing the Flag Code’s rules are legally enforceable—significantly drives political controversy. When people see perceived violations of flag customs, they often believe a law has been broken, fueling outrage and calls for legislation that the Supreme Court has already deemed unconstitutional.
The Flag Code itself provides one of the strongest arguments against criminalizing flag burning based on the actor’s message. Section 8(k) explicitly states: “The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.”
This provision underscores the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Johnson and Eichman: the physical act of burning a flag isn’t inherently illegal or disrespectful. Legality depends on context and purpose, and the government can’t constitutionally prohibit burning for protest while allowing it for disposal.
When Flag Burning Becomes Criminal
First Amendment protection for flag burning isn’t absolute immunity. The protection applies to the expressive content—the symbolic speech—but doesn’t shield individuals from prosecution for unrelated criminal conduct.
While federal and state statutes specifically targeting “flag desecration” are unenforceable, prosecutors can and do use other generally applicable laws in certain situations.
Flag burning can lead to criminal charges in several clear circumstances:
Theft and Vandalism: The First Amendment protects your right to burn your own flag. It doesn’t protect stealing someone else’s flag—whether from private citizens, businesses, or government property—and then burning it. Such cases can result in prosecution for theft, larceny, and destruction of property.
Arson and Public Safety: Context matters enormously. Burning a flag in a manner that recklessly endangers people or property—inside a building, near a gas station, or during high fire-risk conditions—can result in prosecution for arson, reckless endangerment, or creating public hazards.
Incitement and Fighting Words: While the legal standard is extremely high, speech intended to and likely to incite “imminent lawless action” isn’t protected by the First Amendment. However, as the Supreme Court clarified in Johnson, an act doesn’t lose protection simply because it angers onlookers or causes “serious offense.” The threat of violence must be direct and immediate.
Practical Applications: What’s Legal and What Isn’t
The following scenarios illustrate how these legal principles work in practice:
| Scenario | Action | Protected by First Amendment? | Why or Why Not? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Political Protest | You purchase a flag and burn it safely in a public park as a protest against government policy. | Yes | This is the core holding of Texas v. Johnson. The act is symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. |
| Theft and Destruction | You pull a flag off a neighbor’s porch, take it to the street, and burn it. | No | The First Amendment doesn’t protect theft or vandalism. You can be prosecuted for stealing and destroying your neighbor’s property. |
| Reckless Endangerment | You set a flag on fire in a crowded theater or next to a gas pump. | No | This act isn’t protected because it endangers public safety. You can be prosecuted for arson and reckless endangerment. |
| Respectful Disposal | Your flag is old and tattered, so you burn it ceremoniously in your backyard fire pit. | Yes | This is not only legal but is the disposal method recommended by the U.S. Flag Code. |
| Commercial Use | You print a flag image on disposable paper napkins for your company picnic. | Legal, but… | While this violates Flag Code etiquette, it’s not a crime. The First Amendment protects this use. |
The Broader Constitutional Context
The flag burning controversy reflects broader tensions within American constitutional law between competing values and interpretations of democratic governance.
Majoritarian Democracy vs. Constitutional Rights
The persistent support for a flag burning amendment, despite repeated legislative failures, illustrates the tension between majority rule and minority rights. Public opinion polls consistently show most Americans support criminalizing flag burning. All 50 state legislatures have passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment.
Yet the constitutional system has prevented this majority preference from becoming law. This outcome reflects the Founders’ design, which includes multiple safeguards against what they called the “tyranny of the majority.”
The Constitution’s amendment process requires broad consensus rather than simple majority rule. The Senate’s structure, with equal representation for all states regardless of population, gives smaller states disproportionate influence in blocking constitutional changes.
These features aren’t bugs in the system—they’re deliberate design choices intended to protect fundamental rights from temporary popular passions.
The Evolution of First Amendment Doctrine
The flag burning cases also demonstrate how constitutional interpretation evolves over time. The concept of “symbolic speech” wasn’t clearly established when the First Amendment was ratified in 1791. The Supreme Court developed this doctrine gradually through the 20th century as new forms of political expression emerged.
Early First Amendment jurisprudence focused primarily on written and spoken words. The Court’s recognition that conduct can constitute protected speech represents a significant expansion of the amendment’s scope. This evolution reflects broader changes in how Americans communicate political ideas and how courts interpret constitutional text in light of new circumstances.
Federal vs. State Authority
The flag burning cases also highlight the complex relationship between federal and state authority in American federalism. The original case, Texas v. Johnson, involved a state law. Congress responded with federal legislation. Both levels of government attempted to criminalize the same conduct, and both were overruled by federal courts applying the same constitutional principles.
This sequence illustrates how constitutional rights operate as limits on all levels of government power. Neither state nor federal lawmakers can circumvent constitutional protections through creative legislation. Only constitutional amendment can override constitutional rights—and that process is intentionally difficult.
International Perspectives on Flag Protection
The United States is unusual among democratic nations in its broad protection for flag desecration. Many other countries with strong free speech traditions nonetheless criminalize disrespectful treatment of their national flags.
European Approaches
Germany’s criminal code prohibits “defaming the federal republic and its symbols.” France criminalizes “outrage” to the national flag. The United Kingdom’s Public Order Act includes provisions against “insulting” the flag in ways likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress.
These laws typically focus on public order concerns rather than symbolic respect. European courts have generally upheld flag protection statutes as reasonable limitations on expression rights, balancing free speech against social cohesion and public peace.
Different Constitutional Traditions
The contrast reflects different constitutional traditions and judicial philosophies. European legal systems often emphasize balancing individual rights against collective interests. Courts weigh free expression against competing values like public order, social harmony, and national unity.
American constitutional law takes a more categorical approach to First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that speech can’t be restricted simply because it’s offensive or disagreeable to most people. This creates stronger protection for unpopular expression but also generates more controversy when that protection extends to acts many citizens find deeply offensive.
The Continuing Political Battle
Despite repeated failures to achieve the necessary votes for constitutional amendment, flag burning remains a recurring political issue. The amendment typically resurfaces during periods of heightened patriotic sentiment or political polarization.
Electoral Politics and Symbolic Issues
Flag burning serves as what political scientists call a “wedge issue”—one that divides voters along cultural rather than economic lines. Politicians often use support for flag protection to signal broader commitments to traditional values and national unity.
The issue’s emotional resonance makes it valuable for political mobilization even when legislative success seems unlikely. Voters who feel strongly about flag protection may support candidates who champion the cause, regardless of other policy positions.
Changing Cultural Attitudes
Generational differences in attitudes toward flag burning may affect the amendment’s long-term prospects. Younger Americans, who came of age after the Vietnam War protests that gave rise to most flag burning incidents, often view the issue as less pressing than older generations.
Declining military participation rates and changing forms of political expression may also reduce the issue’s salience over time. Social media and other digital platforms have created new venues for political protest that don’t involve physical symbols.
Legal Precedent and Future Cases
The Supreme Court’s flag burning decisions remain good law and continue to influence other areas of First Amendment doctrine. The principles established in Johnson and Eichman have been applied to numerous other cases involving symbolic speech and government attempts to regulate expressive conduct.
Broader Applications
Courts have cited the flag burning precedents in cases involving:
- Cross burning and hate speech
- Student expression in schools
- Protest activities in public forums
- Government regulation of artistic expression
- Commercial speech restrictions
The core principle—that government can’t prohibit expression simply because it’s offensive—has proven remarkably durable across different contexts and changing Court compositions.
Potential Challenges
Future cases might test the boundaries of flag burning protection. Digital manipulation of flag images, virtual reality environments, and other new technologies could present novel questions about what constitutes “flag desecration” and whether traditional First Amendment analysis applies.
Climate of heightened security concerns following terrorist attacks or other national crises might also prompt renewed challenges to the flag burning precedent. Courts would have to balance established free speech doctrine against government claims about national security and public safety.
Economic and Social Costs
The flag burning controversy generates various economic and social costs that are rarely considered in political debates about the issue.
Legal System Resources
Prosecuting flag burning cases consumes significant legal system resources. Even when such prosecutions are ultimately unsuccessful due to constitutional protection, they require police investigation, prosecutorial resources, court time, and often appellate review.
These costs are multiplied when cases generate extensive media coverage and political controversy. High-profile prosecutions can consume far more resources than the underlying conduct would seem to warrant.
Political Capital and Opportunity Costs
The recurring political focus on flag burning represents opportunity costs for other legislative priorities. Congressional time and attention devoted to flag protection amendments could be directed toward other issues with more practical impact on citizens’ daily lives.
The polarizing nature of the issue can also damage political relationships and make compromise more difficult on other matters. Politicians who take strong positions on flag burning may find it harder to work across party lines on less symbolic but more substantive issues.
Social Division and Community Cohesion
Intense focus on flag burning can exacerbate social divisions within communities. When incidents occur, they often generate heated public debates that can damage civic discourse and community relations.
The rarity of actual flag burning incidents means these social costs may exceed the harm caused by the underlying conduct. Communities may spend significant time and energy debating responses to problems that barely exist in practice.
Media Coverage and Public Perception
Media coverage of flag burning incidents often distorts public understanding of both the legal issues and the practical scope of the problem. Sensationalized reporting can make rare incidents seem more common and threatening than they actually are.
The Amplification Effect
Television and internet media tend to amplify the visual impact of flag burning through repeated broadcast of the same images. A single incident can receive national coverage far disproportionate to its actual significance, creating the impression that flag burning is a widespread problem requiring legislative response.
This amplification effect helps explain why public opinion polls show strong support for flag protection despite the rarity of actual incidents. Many Americans may believe flag burning is more common than it actually is based on disproportionate media coverage.
Contextual Reporting Challenges
News coverage often focuses on the emotional reactions of viewers rather than the legal and constitutional issues at stake. This emphasis can make it difficult for citizens to understand the broader principles underlying court decisions protecting flag burning.
Complex constitutional doctrines about symbolic speech and viewpoint discrimination don’t translate easily into television soundbites or social media posts. The result is often simplified coverage that obscures the legal reasoning behind flag burning protection.
Educational Implications
The flag burning controversy presents significant challenges for civic education. Teachers must navigate between explaining constitutional principles and acknowledging community sensitivities about flag respect.
Classroom Discussions
Many educators report difficulty teaching about the flag burning cases in a balanced way that explains both the legal reasoning and the emotional responses involved. Students often arrive in class with strong preconceptions based on family or community attitudes.
The cases provide valuable opportunities to discuss how constitutional rights work in practice and why protecting unpopular speech serves broader democratic values. But these lessons can be controversial in communities where flag protection enjoys widespread support.
Historical Context
Understanding the flag burning cases requires knowledge of broader historical context about Vietnam War protests, the civil rights movement, and other periods when symbolic speech became politically controversial. This historical perspective helps students understand why courts developed doctrines protecting symbolic expression.
Many students lack this historical background, making it harder for them to understand why the Supreme Court ruled as it did in the flag burning cases. Effective civic education must provide this context while remaining politically neutral.
The Role of Interest Groups
Various organized interest groups have played crucial roles in shaping the flag burning debate on both sides of the issue. These groups have influenced both legal strategy and political campaigns around flag protection.
Pro-Protection Organizations
The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and similar organizations have been among the most consistent advocates for flag protection laws and constitutional amendments. These groups argue they represent the voices of those who served under the flag in military service.
The Citizens Flag Alliance, formed specifically to promote constitutional amendment, has coordinated lobbying efforts and public education campaigns. The organization works to maintain political pressure for amendment despite repeated legislative failures.
Civil Liberties Groups
The American Civil Liberties Union has consistently opposed flag burning restrictions as violations of First Amendment principles. The ACLU has provided legal representation in most major flag burning cases and continues to monitor legislative proposals for constitutional amendment.
Other free speech organizations, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Student Press Law Center, have filed supporting briefs in flag burning cases and related symbolic speech controversies.
Strategic Considerations
Both sides face strategic challenges in advancing their positions. Pro-protection groups must maintain political momentum despite repeated failures to achieve constitutional amendment. Anti-restriction groups must defend an unpopular position that protects conduct most Americans find offensive.
The emotional nature of the issue makes compromise difficult. Unlike many policy debates where middle-ground solutions are possible, flag burning presents a binary choice between protection and restriction that admits little room for negotiation.
Looking Forward
The flag burning controversy shows little sign of disappearing from American political discourse. The underlying tensions between free expression and national symbol protection remain unresolved and probably unresolvable within the current constitutional framework.
Technological Changes
New technologies may present novel questions about flag protection that current legal doctrine doesn’t clearly address. Digital manipulation of flag images, virtual reality environments, and other emerging platforms could test the boundaries of existing precedent.
Social media platforms already face questions about moderating content that includes flag imagery used in ways some users find offensive. These private decisions about content moderation operate outside First Amendment constraints but reflect similar tensions about balancing expression and respect.
Political Cycles
Flag burning will likely continue to resurface as a political issue during periods of heightened patriotic sentiment or cultural division. Election cycles, national crises, and international conflicts often prompt renewed focus on symbolic issues like flag protection.
The amendment’s persistent failure to achieve the necessary votes suggests it’s unlikely to pass without significant changes in public opinion or political alignment. But the issue retains enough emotional resonance to remain viable as a political rallying point.
Constitutional Development
Future Supreme Court compositions might revisit the flag burning precedent, though the principle has proven remarkably durable across different Courts and eras. Any reconsideration would require overturning well-established doctrine with broad applications beyond flag protection specifically.
The Court’s current emphasis on originalist constitutional interpretation might theoretically support flag protection laws, since flag burning wasn’t widely considered protected speech when the First Amendment was ratified. But the precedential value of Johnson and Eichman would make such a reversal highly controversial and legally complex.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
