Street V. New York - The Decision of The Court

The Decision of The Court

Before reaching the constitutional questions, the Supreme Court first considered whether it had jurisdiction or not. According to precedent, when hearing an appeal on certiorari from the highest court of a state, the United States Supreme Court will only pass judgment on the constitutionality of a state law if the question was first raised in state court. Relying on New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63, 67 (1928), cf. People v. McLucas, 15 N.Y.2d 167, 172, 204 N.E.2d 846, 848 (1965), the Supreme Court held that it did in fact have jurisdiction.

The majority opinion of the Court considered that the State both mentioned the defendant's utterance, "If they did that to Meredith, We don't need an American Flag," in the charging document, and elicited testimony regarding this utterance at trial. Furthermore, "he State never announced that it was relying exclusively upon the burning." For these reasons, Justice Harlan, writing for the majority, determined that it was not possible "to eliminate the possibility either that appellant's words were the sole basis of his conviction or that appellant was convicted for both his words and his deed."

To determine whether the prohibition of "words" in contempt of the American flag was constitutional or not, the majority examined four legitimate public interests that putatively were protected by the law being challenged:

1. an interest in deterring appellant from vocally inciting others to commit unlawful acts;
2. an interest in preventing appellant from uttering words so inflammatory that they would provoke others to retaliate physically against him, thereby causing a breach of the peace;
3. an interest in protecting the sensibilities of passers-by who might be shocked by appellant's words about the American flag, and
4. an interest in assuring that appellant, regardless of the impact of his words upon others, showed proper respect for our national emblem.

The Court found that all four of these interests, considered together, are not sufficient to justify any law prohibiting the utterance of "words" against the U.S. flag.

Finally, Quoting Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. at 367-368, the Court held that "The verdict against the appellant was a general one. It did not specify the ground upon which it rested. . . . t is impossible to say under which clause of the statute the conviction was obtained. If any one of these clauses . . . was invalid, it cannot be determined upon this record that the appellant was not convicted under that clause. . . . It follows that . . . the conviction cannot be upheld." That is, when a defendant is convicted of violating a law only part of which is unconstitutional, and the trial record does not sufficiently demonstrate that he was convicted solely of violating that part of the law that is constitutional, then the Court will reverse the conviction. Thus, the case was remanded to the state courts of New York for further proceedings.