Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteappealcivil rights
trialcivil rightsappellant

Related Cases

Hedlund v. State, 930 N.W.2d 707, 2019 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 241,719
View Case »
Pratt Food Co. v. Bird, 148 Mich. 631, 112 N.W. 701, 118 Am.St.Rep. 601
View Case »
Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 549 U.S. 1304, 127 S.Ct. 1873 (Mem), 167 L.Ed.2d 363, 75 USLW 3034, 75 USLW 3508, 75 USLW 3511, 76 USLW 3017
View Case »
Kirincich v. Standard Dredging Co., 112 F.2d 163, 1940 A.M.C. 868
View Case »
Henson ex rel. Hunt v. International Paper Co., 374 S.C. 375, 650 S.E.2d 74
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 89 S.Ct. 1354, 22 L.Ed.2d 572

Facts

On June 6, 1966, Sidney Street burned a 48-star American flag in protest of the shooting of civil rights leader James Meredith. After setting the flag on fire, he made statements indicating that the flag was no longer needed in light of the events surrounding Meredith's shooting. Street was subsequently charged with malicious mischief for defiling the flag, leading to his conviction in the New York courts.

According to evidence given at trial, the events which led to the conviction were these. Appellant testified that during the afternoon of June 6, 1966, he was listening to the radio in his Brooklyn apartment. He heard a news report that civil rights leader James Meredith had been shot by a sniper in Mississippi. Saying to himself, ‘They didn't protect him,’ appellant, himself a Negro, took from his drawer a neatly folded, 48-star American flag which he formerly had displayed on national holidays. Appellant left his apartment and carried the still-folded flag to the nearby intersection of St. James Place and Lafayette Avenue. Appellant stood on the northeast corner of the intersection, lit the flag with a match, and dropped the flag on the pavement when it began to burn.

Issue

Did the application of New York's statute prohibiting the desecration of the American flag violate Street's First Amendment rights to free expression?

We must decide whether, in light of all the circumstances, that conviction denied to him rights of free expression protected by the First Amendment and assured against state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule

The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects public expression, including acts of protest such as flag burning, and that states cannot impose criminal penalties for such expression unless it incites imminent lawless action.

We hold that s 1425, subd. 16, par. d, was unconstitutionally applied in appellant's case because it permitted him to be punished merely for speaking defiant or contemptuous words about the American flag.

Analysis

The Court analyzed whether Street's words and actions could be constitutionally punished under the New York statute. It concluded that the statute was unconstitutionally applied because it allowed for punishment based on contemptuous speech about the flag, which is protected under the First Amendment. The Court found that Street's remarks did not incite violence or unlawful action and were part of his expression of dissent.

In taking this course, we resist the pulls to decide the constitutional issues involved in this case on a broader basis than the record before us imperatively requires.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals, holding that Street's conviction could not be upheld as it may have been based on his protected speech.

Since appellant could not constitutionally be punished under s 1425, subd. 16, par. d, for his speech, and since we have found that he may have been so punished, his conviction cannot be permitted to stand.

Who won?

Sidney Street prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that his conviction for flag desecration violated his First Amendment rights.

Sidney Street prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that his conviction for flag desecration violated his First Amendment rights.

You must be