United States v. O'Brien
Headline: Law banning knowing destruction of draft registration cards is upheld, allowing conviction for burning a draft card and making public draft‑card burning criminally punishable even when used as protest.
Holding: The Court upheld the 1965 law making it a crime to knowingly destroy or mutilate draft registration cards and reinstated the conviction of the man who burned his card.
- Allows prosecution for publicly burning or mutilating draft registration cards.
- Makes symbolic draft‑card protest subject to criminal penalties when it hinders the draft system.
- Resolves conflicting appeals court rulings about draft‑card destruction prosecutions.
Summary
Background
A man named David Paul O’Brien and three companions publicly burned their Selective Service registration certificates on the steps of a courthouse. O’Brien told FBI agents he did it to protest the war and to influence others. He was indicted and convicted under a 1965 law that made it a crime to "knowingly destroy" or "knowingly mutilate" draft registration cards. The First Circuit struck down the 1965 amendment, and the Supreme Court agreed to resolve conflicting appeals court rulings.
Reasoning
The central question was whether burning a draft card as a protest is protected speech or may be punished because it harms the draft system’s administration. The Court announced a four-part test: a regulation is permitted if it is within governmental power, furthers an important interest, is unrelated to suppressing expression, and restricts expression no more than essential. Applying that test, the Court held the amendment constitutional because protecting the availability and integrity of registration cards serves substantial administrative and security interests. The Court emphasized that the cards help prove registration, aid communication with local boards, deter fraud, and assist efficient drafting, and that the law targets the noncommunicative harm of destroying or mutilating cards.
Real world impact
The decision allows criminal prosecution for destroying or mutilating draft registration cards even when done as a protest. It resolves a split among appeals courts and makes clear symbolic protest does not automatically shield conduct that disrupts government administrative systems. The Court reinstated the district court’s conviction and sentence in this case.
Dissents or concurrances
A concurring justice cautioned that the rule should not foreclose review where a regulation in practice prevents a speaker from reaching a unique audience. A dissenting justice said the Court should revisit whether peacetime conscription itself is permissible and wanted reargument on that broader question.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?