United States v. O'Brien

Facts

On the morning of March 31, 1966, David Paul O’Brien and three companions burned their Selective Service registration certificates on the steps of the South Boston Courthouse. A crowd, including several FBI agents, watched. After he was advised of his rights, O’Brien told the agents that he had burned his certificate because of his beliefs, knowing that he was violating federal law. He told the jury that he burned it publicly to influence others to adopt his antiwar beliefs. The certificate was a small white card, about 2 by 3 inches. It showed the registrant’s name, birth date and place, residence, physical description, signature and Selective Service number, and the address of his local board. The Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948 already made it a crime to forge, alter or change a certificate. In 1965 Congress amended the law to reach anyone who “knowingly destroys, knowingly mutilates” a certificate. A Selective Service regulation also required registrants to keep their certificates in their personal possession at all times. O’Brien was charged under the amended statute with willfully and knowingly mutilating, destroying and changing his certificate by burning it.

Issues

1. Is the 1965 Amendment, which makes it a crime to knowingly destroy or mutilate a Selective Service registration certificate, unconstitutional as applied to O’Brien because he burned his certificate to protest the war and the draft?
2. May a court strike down a statute that is otherwise constitutional because Congress allegedly enacted it with the purpose of suppressing freedom of speech?

Holding

The 1965 Amendment is constitutional both as enacted and as applied to O’Brien. Even assuming his burning was expressive, the law served a substantial government interest unrelated to suppressing expression, and its incidental restriction was no greater than essential. Alleged congressional purpose did not make the statute unconstitutional.