Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Smith, Sheriff v. Goguen

• 1973 • 415 U.S. 566 • Burger Court
In the 1973 case Smith, Sheriff v. Goguen, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendant Leo Goguen who had been convicted under a Massachusetts law for publicly desecrating the American flag by sewing it onto his jeans. The court held that this state statute was unconstitutionally vague and overly broad as it failed to specify what constituted contemptuous treatment of the flag. This lack of clarity could potentially criminalize a wide range of expressive conduct protected under...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1973
Docket: 72-1254
415 U.S. 566
94 S. Ct. 1242
39 L. Ed. 2d 605
1974 U.S. LEXIS 113
Argued: Nov 12, 1973

Smith, Sheriff v. Goguen

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1973 case Smith, Sheriff v. Goguen, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendant Leo Goguen who had been convicted under a Massachusetts law for publicly desecrating the American flag by sewing it onto his jeans. The court held that this state statute was unconstitutionally vague and overly broad as it failed to specify what constituted contemptuous treatment of the flag. This lack of clarity could potentially criminalize a wide range of expressive conduct protected under First Amendment rights to free speech and expression. Therefore, such ambiguity violated due process requirements outlined in Fourteenth Amendment protections against arbitrary enforcement or discriminatory application by authorities based on their subjective interpretation or personal prejudices about what actions disrespect the flag.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Smith v. Goguen, Justice White argued that the Massachusetts flag desecration statute was not unconstitutionally vague and should have been upheld. He contended that while some applications of the law might be unclear, this did not invalidate all potential uses of it. The majority's decision to strike down the entire law based on hypothetical scenarios where its application could be ambiguous was seen as an overreach by Justice White. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation that only explicit political statements were protected under First Amendment rights to free speech; in his view, nonverbal actions such as flag desecration also fell within these protections unless they incited violence or created a clear and present danger.

Opinion written by Justice LFPowell
Decided: Mar 25, 1974
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms