STROMBERG v. CALIFORNIA

Legal Principle at Issue

Did a California state law designating the display of a red flag as a statement of "opposition to organized government" violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Action

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that because the verdict did not specify what clause it was based on, the conviction could not be upheld if any of the statute’s three purposes was unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the first part of the statute prohibiting the display of the flag as a sign of opposition to organized government was unconstitutional.

Facts/Syllabus

Appellant Yetta Stromberg was convicted of a California statute that criminalized displaying a red flag in any public place “as a sign, symbol or emblem of opposition to organized government or as an invitation or stimulus to anarchistic action or as an aid to propaganda that is of a seditious character.” The statute made the crime a felony. 

The trial court held that Stromberg should be convicted if she displayed the flag for any of the reasons specified in the statute. The California District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction; however, Stromberg insisted that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the statute was invalid as being an unwarranted limitation on the right of free speech. The appellate court entertained the contention and decided adversely, expressing doubt of the validity of the statute as related to the first of the three clauses defining purpose ("opposition to organized government,") but construing them as disjunctive and separable, and, upholding the statute as to the other two.

Importance of Case

In ruling that prohibiting the display of a flag as a sign of opposition to organized government was unconstitutional the Court noted that such a clause could be construed to encroach on the right to peacefully protest.