United States v. O'Brien
Facts
On March 31, 1966, David Paul O'Brien and three companions burned their Selective Service registration certificates on the steps of the South Boston Courthouse before a crowd. After being advised of his rights, O'Brien told FBI agents that he had burned his certificate because of his beliefs and knowing that he was violating federal law. He did not dispute that he burned the certificate and argued that he did so publicly to influence others to adopt his antiwar views. He was prosecuted under a 1965 amendment making it a crime knowingly to destroy or mutilate a Selective Service registration certificate.
Issue
Whether the 1965 amendment prohibiting the knowing destruction or mutilation of Selective Service certificates violated the First Amendment, either as applied to O'Brien's burning of his draft card as expressive conduct or because Congress allegedly enacted the law to suppress speech.
Rule
When speech and nonspeech elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government, furthers an important or substantial governmental interest, the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. An otherwise constitutional statute will not be struck down on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.
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
Test yourself
Maya argues that her prosecution violates the First Amendment because she destroyed the card to convey a political message. What is the strongest response?