Using the Keeler Case brief format as a reference on pages 1.6.5, 1.6.6 & 1.6.8, provide a case briefing for Texas v. JohnsonLinks to an external site., 491. U.S. 397 (1989) on page 1.6.3. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/491/397
The case briefing must contain the following components:
1. The title, plus citation. The citation indicates where to find the case.
2. The procedural facts of the case. The procedural facts discuss who is appealing and in which court the case is located.
3. The substantive facts. The substantive facts discuss what happened to instigate the case.
4. The issue. The issue is the question the court is examining.
5. The substantive holding. The substantive holding answers the issue question and is the case law.
6. The procedural holding. The procedural holding discusses what the court did procedurally with the case.
7. The rationale. The rationale is the reason the court held the way it did.
This exercise asks you to brief Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) using the standard case-brief format: title/citation, procedural facts, substantive facts, issue, holding, and reasoning. Read the case and distill each component precisely.
Key takeaways
- Follow the standard brief structure exactly.
- Separate procedural facts (who appealed, which courts) from substantive facts (what happened).
- State the issue as a precise legal question.
- Give the holding and the Court’s reasoning.
- Texas v. Johnson is the flag-burning / First Amendment case.
Title and citation
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) — the Supreme Court case on flag desecration.
Procedural facts
State who is appealing and the path: Johnson was convicted under Texas law; the conviction was reversed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; Texas appealed to the US Supreme Court.
Substantive facts
Johnson burned an American flag during a protest at the 1984 Republican National Convention and was charged under a Texas flag-desecration statute.
Issue, holding, and reasoning
Issue: Is flag burning as political protest expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment? Holding: Yes — the conviction was unconstitutional. Reasoning: the burning was expressive conduct, and the government cannot prohibit expression simply because society finds it offensive. Capture the majority’s rationale and note the dissent.
Format
Use the Keeler brief format and keep each section concise.