# Spence v. Washington

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 25, 1974 · 418 U.S. 405

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425825

## Case

- **Full name:** Spence v. Washington
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 25, 1974
- **Citations:** 418 U.S. 405; 94 S. Ct. 2727; 41 L. Ed. 2d 842; 1974 U.S. LEXIS 89
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Burger
- **Judges:** Burger, Rehnquist, Douglas, White, Blackmun
- **Cited by:** 705 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425825

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that an upside-down American flag with a peace symbol hung out a dormitory-room window was expressive conduct, and stating that “the nature of appellant’s activity, combined with the factual context and environment in which it was undertaken, lead to the conclusion tha…
- holding unconstitutional a state statute that made it a criminal act to place "any word figure, mark, picture, design, drawing or advertisement of any nature upon any flag ... of the United States," and reversing the conviction of college student who attached a peace symbol to…
- holding person's nonverbal activity sufficiently imbued with elements of communication when "[a]n intent to convey a particular message was present, and in the surrounding circumstances the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who [received] it"
- finding petitioner’s expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment because “[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and in the surrounding circumstances the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it”
- concluding that conduct expressed a particular message where “[a]n intent to convey [that] particularized message was present, and in the surrounding circumstances the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.”

## Opinion text

Mr. Chief Justice Burger,
dissenting.
If the constitutional role of this Court were to strike, down unwise laws or restrict unwise application of some laws, I could agree with the result reached by the Court. That is not our function, however, and it should be left to each State and ultimately the common sense of its people to decide how the flag, as a symbol of national unity, should be protected.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425825. Public record. Not legal advice.