The federal law regulating flags ("flag code") sets forth guidelines for private citizens on the appearance and display of the U.S. flag ("flag"). The flag code also specifies how to deliver the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and appropriate conduct while watching a performance of the National Anthem. Most of the flag code contains no explicit enforcement mechanisms, and relevant case law would suggest that provisions without enforcement mechanisms are declaratory and advisory only. Efforts by states to punish either verbal flag disparagement or disrespectful flag display ("flag-misuse laws") have been struck down under First Amendment free speech precepts that apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal law and many state laws also provide penalties for physical mistreatment of the flag ("flag-desecration" laws), although application of these laws would generally violate the U.S. Constitution. For instance, the federal Flag Protection Act, which criminalizes flag desecration, was struck down on First Amendment free speech grounds as prohibiting symbolic speech. Some federal and state flag-misuse laws also prohibit placing advertising images on the U.S. flag or displaying the U.S. flag on merchandise; these laws may also be vulnerable to free speech challenges, although the Supreme Court has reserved this question. Finally, there are mandatory state requirements directing the daily recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by teachers that have been upheld against Establishment Clause challenges, although a requirement that students participate in such recitation was struck down as a violation of free speech. The flag code provides detailed guidelines for the appearance and display of the flag. The flag is to contain thirteen horizontal stripes, alternating red and white, and the union of the flag (the blue field) is to contain one star for each state. Flags are displayed from sunrise to sunset; however, a properly illuminated flag may be displayed at night. The flag should be hoisted briskly and lowered ceremoniously and should not be displayed during days of inclement weather unless an all-weather flag is used. The flag should be displayed daily on or near the main building of every public institution, in or near polling places on election day, and in or near schools on school days. There are guidelines for when a flag is used in a procession, displayed on a float or motorcar, displayed with other flags, or displayed from a flagpole. There are also detailed guidelines for when and how flags are to be displayed at half-staff. There are guidelines for when a flag is used to cover a casket and for when a flag is suspended across a building corridor or lobby. There is a description of the appropriate conduct of persons during the hoisting, lowering, and passing of the flag, and there are directions for how a flag is not to be treated. Finally, the President can modify the flag display requirements of the flag code. The Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down the application of flag improper use or desecration laws on free speech grounds. In Street v. New York , the Court considered a challenge to a law that made it a misdemeanor to "publicly mutilate, deface, defile, or defy, trample upon, or cast contempt upon either by words or act [any flag of the United States]." In Street , the defendant, learning of the shooting of civil rights activist James Meredith, burned a flag on a Brooklyn street corner while stating "Yes; that is my flag; I burned it. If they let that happen to Meredith, we don't need an American flag." The Court in Stree t first concluded that the trial record did not establish whether the defendant's conviction had been for burning the flag or for the accompanying words, so it considered either as possible grounds for the conviction. The Court evaluated the purported governmental interest in punishing the defendant's words, rejecting the argument that the government's intent was to deter the incitement of unlawful acts. The Court next held that the speech in question was not "fighting words," i.e., words so inherently inflammatory that they were "likely to provoke the average person to retaliations, and thereby cause a breach of the peace." Nor, the Court concluded, was the statute narrowly drawn to punish only words of that character. Further, the Court dismissed the argument that government interests in avoiding "shocking" or disrespectful speech outweighed the freedom to express one's opinions about the flag. Finally, the Court concluded that freedom of speech protected public expression of opinions about the flag, even if such opinions are defiant or contemptuous. Because it had sufficient basis to overrule the conviction based on the spoken words alone, the Court declined to pass upon the validity of the New York law as applied to the flag burning. In the subsequent flag-misuse case of Spence v. Washington , a college student was convicted under a Washington State improper use law for affixing a peace symbol made of removable tape to a U.S. flag and hanging the flag upside down from an apartment window. The defendant testified that he had put the peace symbol on the flag as a protest against the Cambodian invasion and the killing of students at Kent State University during anti-war protests. The Court held that the student's act was symbolic speech, an activity imbued with communication. The Court also held there were no facts to support a breach of the peace, nor was there a valid governmental interest in avoiding offensive speech. The Court concluded that the flag had not been damaged by the removable tape, so maintaining the physical integrity of the flag was not at issue. Thus, the Court concluded that no governmental interest existed to support the conviction within the contours of the First Amendment. In Texas v. Johnson , a political demonstration participant at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas was convicted of burning a flag in front of Dallas City Hall. He was convicted under a Texas statute that prohibited the desecration of a venerated object, sentenced to a year in jail, and fined $2000. Texas conceded that the flag burning was expressive conduct, but argued that there was sufficient governmental interest in such prohibition. The Court rejected the argument that the law was designed to prevent breaches of the peace, noting that no such breach occurred in this case and that Texas had not shown that every flag-burning was "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Further, Texas already had a statute that prohibited breaches of the peace. The Court in Johnson also held that Texas's assertion that the law was needed to preserve the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity only showed that the law was targeting expression, not conduct. Further, the law's application only to severe acts of physical abuse against the flag that were likely to be offensive made clear that the restriction was content-based. The Court found Texas's expressed interestâthat flag-burning casts doubts on the meaning of the flag as a national symbolâcould not be justified because society found the burning offensive or disagreeable. Thus, the defendant's conviction was held to violate the First Amendment. In response to the Johnson decision, Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act of 1989. Two separate groups of protestors were prosecuted for flag burning under this act, and their cases were considered by the Supreme Court in U nited S tates v. Eichman . As the government in Eichman conceded that the defendant's conduct was expressive, the Court limited its decision to whether the Flag Protection Act was constitutionally distinct from the Texas statute in Johnson . The government contended the Flag Protection Act did not target expressive conduct, but was intended to protect the physical integrity of the flag in order to safeguard the flag's identity "as the unique and unalloyed symbol of the Nation." It argued that, unlike the Texas statute in Johnson that prohibited only flag desecration "that seriously offend[s]" onlookers, the act's prohibitions were not based on motive, intended message, or the likely effects of the conduct on onlookers. The Court, however, held that the mere destruction of a U.S. flag did not affect the significance of the flag as a symbol of national unity unless that destruction was done with the intent to communicate a message. Further, the language of the actâwhich prohibits mutilating, defacing, defiling or trampling upon a flagâconnotes disrespectful treatment of a flag in order to damage the flag's symbolic value, and the exception for disposal of "worn or soiled" flags exempts acts traditionally associated with patriotic respect for the flag. Thus, the Court held that the act was a regulation of expressive activity and, consistent with its decision in Johnson , struck it down. Resolutions were introduced in the 115th Congress proposing a constitutional amendment to authorize Congress to prohibit physical desecration of the flag, but no similar resolutions have been introduced in the 116th Congress thus far. Flag-misuse laws sometimes include a prohibition on the use of the U.S. flag for certain forms of commercial speech such as advertising. Commercial speech, however, has fewer constitutional protections than other forms of speech. The Supreme Court considers speech commercial when: (1) it is contained in an advertisement; (2) refers to a specific product or service; and (3) the speaker has an economic motivation for making it. The Court in Eichman , when striking down the Flag Protection Act, noted that its opinion did not extend to prohibitions on the commercial exploitation of the U.S. flag. Thus, the question remains whether prohibitions on the use of flags for advertising purposes violates the First Amendment. It does not appear that any court has directly addressed whether the use of a U.S. flag in advertising is commercial speech. One difficulty in analyzing this issue is that the display of a flag in advertising appears to add little expressive content to the commercial aspects of the advertisement. In other words, while a U.S. flag may be used in an advertisement and its use may be economically motivated (fulfilling the first and third criteria for commercial speech), the display of a flag is unlikely to convey information about the specific product or service. Rather, the expressive content of displaying the flag would appear to be to link the product or service to a political message such as patriotism or national pride. To the extent that the display of the flag in an advertisement communicated an idea such as patriotism, then it might not even be treated as commercial speech but would be analyzed as expressive conduct. Even if advertising using a flag was evaluated as commercial speech, the statute prohibiting it might still be found to violate free speech, as commercial speech does retain some free speech protections. In Central Hudson Gas & Elec. v. Public S ervice Comm ission , the Court considered whether the Public Service Commission of the State of New York could order electric utilities in New York State to cease advertising promoting electricity use. The Court noted a "common sense" distinction between speech proposing commercial transactions that occurs in an area traditionally subject to government regulation and other varieties of speech. Consequently, the Court applied a four-part analysis for commercial speech. First, for commercial speech to be protected, it must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, there must be a substantial government interest in its regulation. If both inquiries yield positive answers, the Court must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted and whether it is "narrowly drawn" to be no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. In Central Hudson , the Court held that New York's interest in reducing inequities in the regulated electricity market that would be caused by increased energy consumption was substantial, as was the government's energy conservation interest. The Court went on to hold, however, that it was speculative whether the governmental interest in avoiding inequities would be served, and that this interest was only served if other factors that affected electricity rates remained constant. The Court did find that the State's interest in energy conservation was substantial and that the parties did not dispute that advertising would increase sales. The Court, however, struck down the advertising ban as not narrowly drawn to that interest, in that it prohibited not only advertising that would increase energy use but also advertising that would have an energy neutral effect or would lead to a net decrease in energy consumption. It should be noted that, despite the more limited protection afforded commercial speech, the Supreme Court has not upheld governmental suppression of truthful commercial speech in more than twenty years. Further, several post- Central Hudson cases seem to afford more protection to commercial speech than originally contemplated by the case. For instance, in City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc. , the Court, considering a City of Cincinnati regulation banning commercial publications from public newsracks, rejected the "bare assertion that the 'low value' of commercial speech is a sufficient justification for [a] selective and categorical ban on newsracks dispensing 'commercial handbills.'" Rejecting the city's regulation, the Court noted that "the city's argument attaches more importance to the distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech than our cases warrant and seriously underestimates the value of commercial speech." Similarly, in 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island , Justice Stevens, writing for a plurality, suggested that the First Amendment requires a full, "rigorous review" of any commercial speech regulations "unrelated to the preservation of a fair bargaining process[.]" Even applying the Hudson analysis, there are arguments that flag-misuse laws regarding advertising would violate free speech. Assuming such advertising neither involved an inherently unlawful activity nor was intended to mislead a viewer (the first prong of the Central Hudson test), the law would be subject to the remaining three prongs of Central Hudson : whether there is a substantial government interest, whether the law directly advances that governmental interest and whether the law is "narrowly drawn." While this analysis would occur in the context of commercial speech, the Court's analysis of restrictions on symbolic speech, which is similar to the analysis of commercial speech, would be relevant. For instance, while concerns about avoiding a breach of the peace is a substantial governmental interest, it seems unlikely that, after Spence and Johnson , the Court would find that prohibiting using a flag for commercial advertising was intended to avoid a breach of the peace. Similarly, preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity, while it might be a substantial governmental interest, would also seem unlikely to be significantly damaged by the use of flags for commercial activity. Finally, as in Eichman , preserving the physical integrity of a privately owned flag would be unlikely to be a sufficient government interest to outweigh the suppression of expressive conduct. Thus, a court would be likely to find that enforcement of a flag-misuse statute against a commercial advertisement violates precepts of free speech. Teacher-led recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance have been challenged as violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Specifically, a variety of federal courts have addressed whether the use of the phrase "one Nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance renders a recitation of the Pledge by a teacher to students unconstitutional. For instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court (Ninth Circuit) held that daily recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. That decision was overturned by the Supreme Court on other grounds, however, and a later decision by the Ninth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion. In Newdow v. Unite d States Congress , the Ninth Circuit considered a case brought by a father that argued the Pledge of Allegiance recitation by his daughter's public school teacher violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The father did not claim that his daughter was compelled to recite the Pledge, but argued that his daughter was compelled to watch her state-employed teacher proclaim that there is a God and that the United States is nation under that God. The Ninth Circuit considered this challenge using the "coercion test," first articulated in the case of Lee v. Weisman , which held that "the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise to act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so." In Weisman , the court concluded that "the graduation prayers bore the imprint of the State and thus put school-age children who objected in an untenable position." The Court also considered the "heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools," holding that the school district's supervision and control of the graduation ceremony put impermissible pressure on students to participate in, or at least show respect during, the prayer. The court in Newdow similarly reasoned that the school had placed its students in the untenable position of choosing between participating in the Pledge or protesting and that the monotheistic religious content of the Pledge was not de minimus. The Supreme Court, however, overturned the Newdow case on other grounds, holding that the child's father, who had disputed custody over his child, lacked standing to bring the case. Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit, considering a Pledge of Allegiance passed by Congress after the Newdow decision (but using the same words), concluded that its previous opinion in Newdow was no longer binding precedent, that Supreme Court Establishment Clause case law had subsequently changed, and that Congress, when passing the new version of the Pledge of Allegiance, established a secular purpose for the use of the terms "Under God." Thus, the Ninth Circuit upheld the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school teachers. Other United States Courts of Appeals have also rejected Establishment Clause challenges to the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. The flag code provides that the Pledge of Allegiance shall be rendered standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Many states have statutes providing that schools provide for an opportunity for the daily recitation of the Pledge by public school students. The Court in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette , however, held that that mandating that a student participate in a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance violates free speech principles under the First Amendment. As noted previously, the federal "flag code" specified conduct when delivering the Pledge of Allegiance is voluntary. In West Virginia State Board of Education , the Supreme Court considered a West Virginia Board of Education (Board) mandate for public school students to perform the Pledge on a daily basis. A child who would not participate was expelled until such time as they complied and the child's parent or guardian could be fined $50 or jailed for up to 30 days. The Court concluded that the requirement, that students perform a stiff-arm salute and recite the Pledge, was a violation of the free speech protections of the First Amendment. The plaintiffs in Ba rnette were Jehovah's witnesses whose religious beliefs conflicted with the requirement of pledging allegiance to the laws of a secular government. The Court analyzed the Board requirement as compelled speech holding that the mandated flag salute was a form of symbolic utterance. The Court also noted that remaining passive during a flag salute did not present the kind of clear and present danger that would justify regulation. The Court also discounted arguments that the Pledge fostered national unity, noting that "[a]uthority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority." The Court held that these precepts applied regardless of whether there was a religious basis for the student's objection to performing the Pledge.
The "flag code" is the federal law that sets forth guidelines for the appearance and display of the U.S. flag ("flag") by private citizens. These guidelines specify times and conditions for display of the flag, manners and methods of display, and buildings where such display should occur. The guidelines for flag display vary based on the context and occasion, and there are detailed specifications for displaying flags at "half-staff." The flag code also specifies how to deliver the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and appropriate conduct while watching a performance of the National Anthem. Most of the flag code contains no explicit enforcement mechanisms, and relevant case law would suggest that the provisions without enforcement mechanisms are declaratory and advisory only. Efforts by states to punish verbal flag disparagement or prevent disrespectful flag display ("flag-misuse laws") have been struck down by the Supreme Court in Street v. New York and Spence v. Washington as free speech violations under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Federal and many state laws also specify punishments for physical mistreatment of the U.S. flag ("flag-desecration laws"), although under Texas v. Johnson and U nited S tates v. Eichman , the Court held that application of these laws against expressive conduct violates free speech precepts. A separate issue is that federal and many state flag-misuse laws provide punishment for placing advertising images on a U.S. flag or displaying an image of a flag on merchandise. While these laws have not been challenged on free speech grounds, the Court has reserved the question whether the Johnson and Eichman holdings would apply in a commercial context, and it seems likely these laws would survive judicial scrutiny. Finally, while federal courts of appeals have rejected Establishment Clause challenges to recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in classrooms despite language in the Pledge describing "one Nation under God," the Court in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette held that a state law mandating that students participate in a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance violates free speech precepts.