United States v. O'Brien
- Decided
- May 27, 1968
- Docket
- 232
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,604 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that government has more latitude in restricting expressive conduct than in curtailing pure speech — American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Janet Reno (1997)
- holding that a content-neutral restraint is valid only if "the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest" — Sdj, Inc., D/B/A Sugar Babes v. The City of Houston (1988)
- recognizing that burning a draft card as part of a demonstration against the draft may be entitled to some First Amendment protection — State v. Ongley (1994)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court.
On the morning of March 31,1966, David Paul O’Brien and three companions burned their Selective Service registration certificates on the steps of the South Boston Courthouse. A sizable crowd, including several agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, witnessed the event.[1] Immediately after the burning, members of the crowd began attacking O’Brien and his companions. An FBI agent ushered O’Brien to safety inside the courthouse. After he was advised of his right to counsel and to silence, O’Brien stated to FBI agents that he had burned his registration certificate because of his beliefs, knowing that he was violating federal law. He produced the charred remains of the certificate, which, with his consent, were photographed.
For this act, O’Brien was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.[2] He did not contest the fact [*370] that he had burned the certificate. He stated in argument to the jury that he burned the certificate publicly to influence others to adopt his antiwar beliefs, as he put it, “so that other people would reevaluate their positions with Selective Service, with the armed forces, and reevaluate their place in the culture of today, to hopefully consider my position.”
Statutes cited
Cite this
United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.