United States v. O’Brien (1968)

United States v. O’Brien, Supreme Court, 1968

Facts of the Case

David Paul O’Brien burned his Selective Service registration card (draft card) on the steps of a Boston courthouse to protest the Vietnam War. He was arrested and convicted under a federal law that made it a crime to knowingly destroy or mutilate a draft card. O’Brien argued that the law violated his First Amendment right to free speech, claiming that burning the draft card was a form of symbolic speech.

Constitutional Question

Does the federal law prohibiting the destruction of draft cards violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech when applied to someone who burns a draft card as a form of protest?

Arguments

For O’Brien:

  • The act of burning the draft card was symbolic speech intended to convey opposition to the Vietnam War, and as such, it is protected by the First Amendment.
  • The law against destroying draft cards is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech because it criminalizes expressive conduct.
  • The government’s interest in preserving draft cards does not outweigh the fundamental right to free speech.

For the United States:

  • The law is a content-neutral regulation that serves a significant government interest in maintaining an effective draft system, which is crucial for national defense.
  • The law does not target speech or expression but rather the non-speech element of destroying a government-issued document.
  • The government’s interest in preserving the integrity of the draft system justifies the restriction on O’Brien’s conduct.

The Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 7-1 decision, ruled against O’Brien. Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the majority, held that the law prohibiting the destruction of draft cards did not violate the First Amendment. The Court established the “O’Brien test,” a standard for evaluating whether a government regulation that incidentally restricts speech is constitutionally permissible. The test requires that:

  1. The regulation is within the constitutional power of the government.
  2. The regulation furthers an important or substantial government interest.
  3. The government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression.
  4. The incidental restriction on First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.

The Court found that the law met all four prongs of this test. The government’s interest in maintaining an efficient and effective draft system was deemed substantial, and the restriction on O’Brien’s expressive conduct was considered incidental and justified.

Significance

United States v. O’Brien is a significant case in First Amendment jurisprudence because it established a test for determining when government regulations that incidentally restrict speech are constitutionally valid. The “O’Brien test” has been used in subsequent cases to evaluate the constitutionality of laws that impact expressive conduct. The decision highlighted the balance between individual rights to free speech and the government’s authority to enforce laws that serve important public interests. The case reaffirmed that not all expressive conduct is immune from regulation, particularly when the regulation serves a significant government interest unrelated to the suppression of expression.