The Trump administration moves to contest the protections of the Supreme Court for the burning of the flag

President Donald Trump and his administration are probably ready to challenge a decision of the Supreme Court which protected the fire of the American flag under the first amendment with a new executive decree calling for those who profane the American flag while inciting violence or by violating other laws to deal with prosecution.

The decree, which Trump signed on Monday morning, orders the Attorney General to pursue those who violate the laws “in a way that implies desecrate the flag” and to continue a dispute which would clarify the extent of the first amendment with regard to the desecration of the flag.

Burning the American flag, however, has already been pleaded, with the decision of the Supreme Court in 1989 that it was a form of symbolic discourse protected by the first amendment.

“I think what the president says is that he orders the Attorney General Pam Bondi, lawyers of the Ministry of Justice to continue those who unfortunately burn an American flag,” Fox News Digital Fox Digital of the Heritage Foundation Foundation told Fox News. “And what it would do essentially is possibly a challenge for the Supreme Court to review and potentially cancel its previous precedent saying that baking an American flag is a protected speech.”

Trump to rage against the burning flag, desecration with the executive decree

President Donald Trump signed an executive decree on August 25, 2025, repressing the suspects that profane the American flag. (Getty Images)

The 1989 affair was focused on political demonstrators Gregory Lee Johnson, who burned the American flag in 1984 outside the National Republican Convention in Dallas to protest the re -election of President Ronald Reagan.

“America, red, white and blue, we spit”, the demonstrators sang Johnson lighting the flag on fire, according to the details of the case, called Texas c. Johnson.

Johnson was charged under the law on venerated objects of Texas, a law of the State which prevented individuals from vandalizing respected objects such as the American flag. Johnson was found guilty in 1985 and sentenced to one year behind bars and a fine of $ 2,000, but appealed the decision.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in 1989, with the greatest decision of the country’s court in a decision of 5 to 4 according to which the burning of the American flag was protected by the first amendment. The Supreme Court held a conservative majority at the time.

Trump’s renewed calls in the American flag burners’ prison collide with a previous court

Judge William J. Brennan, a democrat appointed by former president Dwight Eisenhower, issued the majority opinion and argued that “the government cannot prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or unpleasant”.

“We can not imagine any more appropriate response to burn a flag than to wave your own, no better way to counter the message of a flag burner than to saluting the burning flag, no safer way to preserve the very dignity of the flag that has burned – like a witness here – according to his rest an burial of respect,” said majority opinion. “We do not devote the flag by punishing its desecration, because that we dilute the freedom that this darling emblem.”

The executive decree of the American flag of President Trump calls on the attorney general to use “the maximum extent authorized by the Constitution” “to vigorously pursue those who violate our laws so as to involve the American flag”. (SPXCHROME)

Thurgood Marshall judges, Harry A. Blackmun, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy joined Brennan in majority opinion. Head judge William Rehnquist is the author of the dissenting opinion of the Court, arguing that the American flag holds unique status in the United States which should protect it from acts such as Burning.

In 1990, the Supreme Court reaffirmed this decision, while invalidating the 1989 Congress Direct Protection Act, which legislators adopted in response to the Texas v. Johnson from the Supreme Court.

Trump’s executive decree of Trump calls the Attorney General specifically to launch legal efforts to clarify “the scope of the first amendment”.

Trump promises consequences for the burning “animals” of American flags in Los Angeles, slams these flags from other countries

The executive decree declares: “To the maximum extent authorized by the Constitution, the Attorney General will vigorously continue those who violate our laws so as to involve the American flag and can continue disputes to clarify the scope of the exceptions of the first amendment in this area.”

In 2003, Judge Clarence Thomas gave an overview of the place where he is with the fire of revered objects, offering a dissident opinion in the Virginia v. Black on the fire of the crosses.

Thomas quoted the dissident opinion of Rehnquist in the Texas case c. Johnson in his dissident opinion of 2003 on cross burns.

“In each culture, some things acquire a meaning far beyond what foreigners can understand. It is worth both for the sacred, see Texas c. Johnson491 US 397, 422-429 (1989) (Rehnquist, CJ, Dissident) (describing the unique position of the American flag in the 200 years of history in our country) and the profane. I believe that the cross burn is the paradigmatic example of the latter, “he wrote in 2003.

President Trump’s executive decree on the desecration of the flag calls the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to launch legal efforts to clarify “the scope of the first amendment”. (Francis Chung / Politico / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Smith underlined two dynamics to monitor with regard to a potential case which landed on the file of the Supreme Court in the future: some judges have expressed “a certain concern that expressive conduct has been read too largely”, and how the judges will apply to Stare deisis, which is the legal doctrine describing the courts which should follow the precedents, as the decision of 1989.

“I think a few things happen here,” he said. “I think that some judges have expressed some concern that potentially expressive conduct has been read too largely. Things that are really behaviors, and not speech, have been read to be protected, and perhaps should not be protected, as protected as in the past.”

Trump signs decrees to eliminate the deposit without cash for suspects at DC and nationwide

“The other interesting dynamic, I think you should monitor, is how some judges will apply what is known as the Stare deisis, and it is essentially the Latin term fantasy. This means that” they decided “,” continued Smith. “Several times recently, chief judge Roberts in particular, said that even if he does not agree on the advantages of the … decision that the Supreme Court was taking, he nevertheless joined the majority because he thinks that the point of view of the decision should apply and that the Court should not overthrow or review his previous decisions in this area. Even if he can disagree with her.”

Trump celebrated the executive decree at the signing ceremony on Monday in the oval office, saying that the 1989 Supreme Court decision protecting the burning of the flag was made by a “very sad court”.

“Burning flag. In the whole country, they burn flags. All over the world, they burn the American flag,” he said. “And as you know, by a very sad court, I suppose that there was a decision of 5 to 4. They called it freedom of expression.”

President Donald Trump deplored how the American flags were burned by demonstrations on American soil and abroad. (Mark Schiefelbein / The Associated Press)

“But there is another reason, which may be much more important,” he said. “It’s called Death. Because what’s going on when burning a flag is the region is going crazy. If you have hundreds of people, they go crazy.”

“You can do something else. You can burn this piece of paper,” he said. “But when you burn the American flag, it encourages riots to levels that we have never seen before.”

The first amendment groups such as the Foundation of Individual Rights and the Expression criticized the executive decree in the comments provided to Fox News Digital, saying that Trump does not have the “power to revise the first amendment with a pen”.

“The burning flag as a form of political protest is protected by the first amendment,” said Bob Corn-Rrevere on Monday, Foundation for individual Rights and Expression. “This is nothing new. Although people can be prosecuted for burning anything in a place where they are not allowed to set fires, the government cannot continue a protected expressive activity – even if many Americans, including the president, find it” only offensive and provocative “.

Click here to obtain the Fox News app

“You don’t have to love the burning flag,” he added. “You can condemn it, debate it or hoist your own flag even higher. The beauty of freedom of expression is that you can express your opinions, even if others don’t like what you have to say.”