Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Street v. New York

Supreme Court of the United States · 1969 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFree SpeechFlag DesecrationFirst AmendmentFourteenth Amendmentgeneral verdictconstitutionally protected speech

Facts

After hearing a radio report that James Meredith had been shot, Street took his 48-star American flag to a Brooklyn street corner, lit it, and dropped it on the pavement as it burned. A police officer testified that Street said, among other things, "We don't need no damn flag" and "If they let that happen to Meredith we don't need an American flag." The information charged Street with defiling, casting contempt upon, and burning the flag, expressly referring to both his act and his words. He was convicted under a statute that made it a misdemeanor publicly to mutilate a flag or to defy or cast contempt upon it by words or act.

Issue

Whether Street's conviction could stand when the statute permitted punishment for publicly defying or casting contempt on the American flag by words, and the record did not exclude the possibility that the general conviction rested on his utterances alone or on both his utterances and his flag burning. More specifically, whether New York could constitutionally punish Street merely for speaking defiant or contemptuous words about the flag in the circumstances of this case.

Rule

If a general conviction may have rested on a constitutionally invalid ground, the conviction cannot stand. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, a State may not, in the circumstances presented here, punish a person merely for publicly speaking defiant or contemptuous words about the American flag, because such speech was not shown to be unprotected incitement, fighting words, or otherwise outside constitutional protection.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Ohio, Nia Benton was charged under a city ordinance making it a misdemeanor to "publicly dishonor the national flag by words or acts." The complaint alleged that she tore her own paper flag and shouted to nearby pedestrians, "This flag means nothing to me," and after a bench trial the judge entered a one-line finding of guilt without explanation.

If Nia argues on appeal that her conviction may have rested on constitutionally protected words, what is the best answer?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, a conviction cannot stand when a general verdict or finding may have rested on a constitutionally impermissible ground. That principle applies even when the trier of fact is a judge rather than a jury. If the record does not eliminate the possibility that guilt was based on protected contemptuous words about the flag, or on words plus conduct in a single undifferentiated conviction, reversal is required.