Schacht v. United States

1970-05-25

Headline: Court strikes down rule that barred actors in military uniforms from criticizing the armed forces, reverses conviction of an antiwar street performer and protects theatrical protest speech.

Holding: The Court held that the clause allowing actors to wear uniforms only if their portrayals do not "tend to discredit" the armed forces violated the First Amendment, and it reversed the performer's conviction.

Real World Impact:

Protects performers who use skits to criticize the military from criminal punishment.
Allows amateur outdoor theatrical protest to count as authorized performances.
Confirms Court can excuse late petition filings in criminal appeals when justice requires.

Topics: free speech, protest and street theater, military uniform rules, antiwar demonstrations, criminal penalties

Summary

Background

Daniel Schacht, an antiwar demonstrator, wore an Army uniform while performing a short street skit several times on December 4, 1967, in front of the Houston Armed Forces Induction Center. He was arrested, tried, and convicted under a federal law that makes it a crime to wear military uniforms without authority, and was fined $250 and sentenced to six months in jail. Schacht said he was an actor in a "theatrical production" and relied on a separate statute that authorizes actors to wear uniforms so long as the portrayal does not "tend to discredit" the armed forces.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the street skit qualified as a "theatrical production" and whether the statutory proviso could be applied without violating free speech. The majority held the skit was theatrical — theatrical performances can be outdoor, amateur, and informal — and found that the proviso, read with the criminal law, would criminalize critical portrayals. Because that restriction would punish speech that criticizes the military, the Court ruled the proviso unconstitutional and struck it from the statute. The Court reversed Schacht's conviction.

Real world impact

The ruling protects street theater, protest skits, and similar performances that criticize the military from criminal punishment under the struck clause. It means people acting in amateur dramatic protests may lawfully wear military dress under the authorization, and the Government cannot condition that permission on avoiding criticism. The Court also used its discretion to excuse the petition's late filing in this case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White agreed with the reversal but said the jury should decide whether the skit was a theatrical production. Justice Harlan agreed on waiver of the late filing but urged fuller analysis of the timing rule.