Trump's renewed calls to jail American flag burners clashes with court precedent
President Donald Trump revived calls this week for people who burn American flags to go to jail after demonstrators in California were seen torching them and waving Mexican flags in protest of the administration carrying out immigration enforcement operations in the state.
"I happen to think if you burn an American flag, because they were burning a lot of flags in Los Angeles, I think you go to jail for one year, just automatic," Trump told the New York Post.
Flag burning in the United States is neither unlawful nor unconstitutional. Offenders can only be punished under the law for flag burning if they are committing another crime at the same time, such as violating fire safety laws or burning flags that they stole.
Trump also said this week during a speech in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, that he was working with Congress to pass a law that would outlaw burning American flags, noting Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was on board.
"We'll see if we can get that done," Trump said.
Hawley responded by proposing a bill on Thursday that would create stiffer penalties for rioters who burned American flags. The proposed legislation included the stipulation that the flag burning had to occur while the offender was also committing riot-related crimes. Hawley called the American flag a "symbol of our nation."
In a landmark decision in 1989, the Supreme Court concluded that states could not pass laws that criminalize American flag burning, saying it would open the door to prohibiting the burning of state flags and copies of the presidential seal or Constitution.
"To conclude that the government may permit designated symbols to be used to communicate only a limited set of messages would be to enter territory having no discernible or defensible boundaries. … In evaluating these choices under the First Amendment, how would we decide which symbols were sufficiently special to warrant this unique status? To do so, we would be forced to consult our own political preferences, and impose them on the citizenry, in the very way that the First Amendment forbids us to do," the majority opinion read.
Chief Justice William Renquist dissented, writing that the flag was not "simply another 'idea' or 'point of view' competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas."
"Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have," Renquist wrote.
Congress responded to the decision by passing a law called the Flag Protection Act that made knowingly desecrating the American flag a federal crime, but the Supreme Court struck down that law, too.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
40 minutes ago
- CBS News
Bay Area food banks warn Trump's "big, beautiful bill" would slash federal SNAP funding
With GOP lawmakers looking at a July Fourth deadline to pass President Trump's "big, beautiful bill," the leaders of five major food banks in the Bay Area are urging lawmakers to reconsider a provision of it that would impact the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. "The cuts that are on the table in Congress are the greatest rollback in food assistance that we have seen in modern U.S. history," said Leslie Bacho, CEO of Second Harvest of Silicon Valley. The proposed bill would slash billions of dollars of federal funding for SNAP and shift much of the financial responsibility to individual states. Congressional Republicans who support the cuts say this will help eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse within SNAP. But in a letter addressed to lawmakers, 23 governors warned this will result in states dramatically reducing access to critical food assistance for those who need it most. "These cuts are being rushed through. They're being jammed through. This is not the usual order of business. This is happening swiftly, and it is cruel," said Tanis Crosby, Executive Director of the San Francisco-Marin Food Bank. "Our federal government is creating a crisis," said Caitlin Sly, CEO of the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano. "It will mean that in our community, there is clear and present danger for 175,000 households in this Bay Area to lose SNAP benefits," Crosby said. "One in four children in California rely on SNAP. SNAP is not just a safety net. It is a foundation for stability and most importantly, for dignity," Sly said. Aside from children, the leaders of the food banks say SNAP helps feed seniors on fixed incomes, people with disabilities, and families struggling to get by. "SNAP is the single-most effective anti-poverty tool that we have in this country, and it works," Crosby said. People who lose access to SNAP benefits would likely turn to food banks, currently trying to do more with less as they cater to a historic need. "All of our elected officials right now have the opportunity to speak out, raise awareness, and prevent these harmful cuts from impacting the most vulnerable in our community," Sly said. The bill is not a done deal yet, but President Trump continues to push GOP lawmakers to have it on his desk by Independence Day.
Fox News
44 minutes ago
- Fox News
Todd Chrisley after pardon: What the media did to us, they did to Trump '1 million times more'
All times eastern FOX News Saturday Night with Jimmy Failla FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Senate convenes over President Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
State Department Staff Are Miserable Working Under Marco Rubio
Morale has tanked at Marco Rubio's State Department as staffers are asked to work overtime ahead of looming layoffs. Rubio has called the agency 'bloated' and, in April, announced his intent to lay off 15 percent of its workforce of more than 2,000. This month, however, staff at the State Department have been asked to work long hours to keep Americans overseas safe amid the flaring tensions between Israel and Iran—leaving staffers at the agency feeling insulted that they have been asked to volunteer for extra work while at the same time having their jobs threatened, according to The Washington Post. One State Department official told the Post that the department 'either doesn't appreciate or just doesn't care' about its workers. 'Doing extra shifts while this ax is swinging above our heads is just devastating to morale,' the insider added. The tensions were exacerbated when staff were sent a message requesting that they round up joyous photos of July 4 celebrations at embassies and consulates around the world, the Post reported. Staff were asked to 'collect a high-quality set of visuals'—including 'candid shots of attendees enjoying the event' and 'smiling children, families, and diplomats.' 'To me, the irony of asking for happy photos of smiling children, happy families, and guests celebrating while threatening to fire thousands is peak Trumpism,' one State Department staffer said. While Rubio initially gave a July 1 deadline for the layoffs, the Supreme Court is currently evaluating the permissibility of sweeping job cuts across the federal government under the Trump administration. With no clear sense of when the ruling could come down, State Department officials have been left in limbo. Tom Yazdgerdi, president of the union that represents America's diplomats, told the Post that the job cuts 'show serious disregard for members of the Foreign Service managing multiple conflicts and assisting American citizens in the Middle East and other crisis zones.' 'Despite the stress of not knowing when they or their colleagues might face layoff notices,' he said, 'our members tell us they want nothing more than to remain on the front lines and continue to serve the American people.' Speaking anonymously, a political appointee who worked on the State Department's layoff plan told the Post that it was designed through a 'thoughtful' and 'deliberative process' that included 'dozens of conversations with Congress, employees and stakeholders.' The State Department did not immediately return the Daily Beast's request for comment.
