Appellant
Yetta Stromberg
Appellee
State of California
Appellant's Claim
That the California Red Flag Law prohibits symbolic speech and therefore violates the First Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
John Beardsley
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
John D. Richer
Justices for the Court
Louis D. Brandeis, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles Evans Hughes (writing for the Court), Willis Van Devanter, James Clark McReynolds, Owen Josephus Roberts, Harlan Fiske Stone, George Sutherland
Justices Dissenting
Pierce Butler
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
18 May 1931
Decision
The Supreme Court overturned Stromberg's conviction.
Significance
Although the Court did not specifically address the free speech issues raisedby Stromberg, the case is important in the development of First Amendment law. It marked the first time that the Supreme Court used the FourteenthAmendment to stop a state effort to interfere with a right guaranteed by theFirst Amendment.
In the summer of 1929, 19-year-old Yetta Stromberg, a member of the Young Communist League, was a counsellor at a summer camp for ten- to 15-year-olds. The Pioneer Summer Camp was located in the foothills of the San Bernardino mountains and was a place where the campers learned, among other things, "class-consciousness, the solidarity of the workers and the theory that the workers of the world are of one blood and brothers all." As a part of her duties, Stromberg was responsible for supervising the daily camp ceremony of raising a red flag, which was a camp-made reproduction of the flag of the Soviet Union. Campers would then salute the flag and pledge allegiance to it and to "freedomfor the working class."
At the time, California had on its books a so-called "red flag statute," making it a criminal offense to display such a banner, or anything which was "a sign, symbol, or emblem of opposition to organized government or . . . an invitation or stimulus to anarchistic action." Although it was adopted in 1919, the law had never been enforced. During the summer of 1929, however, the Pioneer Camp was targeted by the Better American Federation (BAF), a group dedicated to ridding California of dangerous elements. The BAF convinced the San Bernardino County sheriff to search the camp, where he discovered the red flag and arrested Stromberg and other camp supervisors. The "red flag statute" wasused to indict Stromberg, who was convicted of a felony in state court. Aftera state appellate court upheld her conviction, Stromberg appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the California statute violated her First Amendment right to freedom of expression.
Court Overturns Conviction Under "Red Flag Law"
In the Supreme Court, Stromberg's lawyers argued that the flag was a symbol of a legitimate political party which had received 50,000 votes in the last election. In prohibiting display of the flag, California was unconstitutionallypreventing Stromberg and others from exercising their right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment. Displaying the flag was, her lawyers claimed, a form of symbolic speech. What is more, it was a form of symbolic political speech. Applying the test for prohibited speech developed by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States (1919), displaying theflag hardly represented a "clear and present danger."
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Hughes largely sidestepped the First Amendment issues raised by Stromberg. Although the opinion of the seven-man majority followed the reasoning of the Holmes doctrine, Hughes used it toarrive at the conclusion that the California law was simply too vague to be constitutional:
The Court overturned Stromberg's conviction. And two years later, Californiarepealed its "red flag law." Although the outcome in Stromberg was notbased on a free speech analysis, it is nonetheless a landmark in the historyof First Amendment law. In this case, for the first time, the Supreme Courtused the Fourteenth Amendment to protect citizens from state interference with free expression.
Related Cases
Anarchistic Legislation: Red Flag Laws
Following the end of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in November of 1917,which closely coincided with the end of World War I, the United States beganto worry about Communist activities within its borders. In 1919 on the firstday of May, the communist labor day called May Day, American radicals in several Northeast cities staged rallies and conducted Red flag parades. The termred was synonymous with Communist and red flags symbolized rebellious discontent and revolution. In reaction, public sentiment against radicalism rose toa fever pitch. The general feeling was the Red flag would have to go for democracy to survive. To prevent reoccurrences of Red flag demonstrations, 32 states passed Red flag laws.
In California, state law established a felony crime to display a red flag orcertain other articles as a symbol of opposition to organized government, asa stimulus to anarchistic (violent government overthrow) action, or as an aidto propaganda.
Intent on suppressing dissent, California in particular vigorously arrested and prosecuted individuals. Between 1919 and 1921, 500 persons were arrested and 264 convicted. The state frequently targeted socialists, Communist Labor party members, and the Industrial Workers of the World, a radical labor union.
Sources
Murray, Robert K. Red Scare: A Study of National Hysteria, 1919-1920.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964.
Yetta Stromberg
Appellee
State of California
Appellant's Claim
That the California Red Flag Law prohibits symbolic speech and therefore violates the First Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
John Beardsley
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
John D. Richer
Justices for the Court
Louis D. Brandeis, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles Evans Hughes (writing for the Court), Willis Van Devanter, James Clark McReynolds, Owen Josephus Roberts, Harlan Fiske Stone, George Sutherland
Justices Dissenting
Pierce Butler
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
18 May 1931
Decision
The Supreme Court overturned Stromberg's conviction.
Significance
Although the Court did not specifically address the free speech issues raisedby Stromberg, the case is important in the development of First Amendment law. It marked the first time that the Supreme Court used the FourteenthAmendment to stop a state effort to interfere with a right guaranteed by theFirst Amendment.
In the summer of 1929, 19-year-old Yetta Stromberg, a member of the Young Communist League, was a counsellor at a summer camp for ten- to 15-year-olds. The Pioneer Summer Camp was located in the foothills of the San Bernardino mountains and was a place where the campers learned, among other things, "class-consciousness, the solidarity of the workers and the theory that the workers of the world are of one blood and brothers all." As a part of her duties, Stromberg was responsible for supervising the daily camp ceremony of raising a red flag, which was a camp-made reproduction of the flag of the Soviet Union. Campers would then salute the flag and pledge allegiance to it and to "freedomfor the working class."
At the time, California had on its books a so-called "red flag statute," making it a criminal offense to display such a banner, or anything which was "a sign, symbol, or emblem of opposition to organized government or . . . an invitation or stimulus to anarchistic action." Although it was adopted in 1919, the law had never been enforced. During the summer of 1929, however, the Pioneer Camp was targeted by the Better American Federation (BAF), a group dedicated to ridding California of dangerous elements. The BAF convinced the San Bernardino County sheriff to search the camp, where he discovered the red flag and arrested Stromberg and other camp supervisors. The "red flag statute" wasused to indict Stromberg, who was convicted of a felony in state court. Aftera state appellate court upheld her conviction, Stromberg appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the California statute violated her First Amendment right to freedom of expression.
Court Overturns Conviction Under "Red Flag Law"
In the Supreme Court, Stromberg's lawyers argued that the flag was a symbol of a legitimate political party which had received 50,000 votes in the last election. In prohibiting display of the flag, California was unconstitutionallypreventing Stromberg and others from exercising their right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment. Displaying the flag was, her lawyers claimed, a form of symbolic speech. What is more, it was a form of symbolic political speech. Applying the test for prohibited speech developed by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States (1919), displaying theflag hardly represented a "clear and present danger."
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Hughes largely sidestepped the First Amendment issues raised by Stromberg. Although the opinion of the seven-man majority followed the reasoning of the Holmes doctrine, Hughes used it toarrive at the conclusion that the California law was simply too vague to be constitutional:
The state court recognized the indefiniteness and ambiguity of the clause. The court considered that it might be construed as embracing conduct which the State could not constitutionally prohibit . . . Themaintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end thatgovernment may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes maybe obtained by lawful means . . . is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system. A statute which upon its face . . . is so vague and indefiniteas to permit the punishment of the fair use of this opportunity is repugnantto the guaranty of liberty contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court overturned Stromberg's conviction. And two years later, Californiarepealed its "red flag law." Although the outcome in Stromberg was notbased on a free speech analysis, it is nonetheless a landmark in the historyof First Amendment law. In this case, for the first time, the Supreme Courtused the Fourteenth Amendment to protect citizens from state interference with free expression.
Related Cases
- State v. Tuscano, 520 So.2d 1311 (1988).
- State v. Grissom, 840 P.2d 1142 (1992).
- Griggs v. State of Kansas, 814 F.Supp. 60 (1993).
Anarchistic Legislation: Red Flag Laws
Following the end of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in November of 1917,which closely coincided with the end of World War I, the United States beganto worry about Communist activities within its borders. In 1919 on the firstday of May, the communist labor day called May Day, American radicals in several Northeast cities staged rallies and conducted Red flag parades. The termred was synonymous with Communist and red flags symbolized rebellious discontent and revolution. In reaction, public sentiment against radicalism rose toa fever pitch. The general feeling was the Red flag would have to go for democracy to survive. To prevent reoccurrences of Red flag demonstrations, 32 states passed Red flag laws.
In California, state law established a felony crime to display a red flag orcertain other articles as a symbol of opposition to organized government, asa stimulus to anarchistic (violent government overthrow) action, or as an aidto propaganda.
Intent on suppressing dissent, California in particular vigorously arrested and prosecuted individuals. Between 1919 and 1921, 500 persons were arrested and 264 convicted. The state frequently targeted socialists, Communist Labor party members, and the Industrial Workers of the World, a radical labor union.
Sources
Murray, Robert K. Red Scare: A Study of National Hysteria, 1919-1920.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964.
Further Readings
- Haiman, Franklyn Saul. "Speech Acts" and the First Amendment.Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1993.
- Klehr, Harvey. The Heyday of American Communism: The Depression Decade. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1984.
- Lewy, Guenter. The Cause That Failed: Communism in American PoliticalLife. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1990.
User Comments Add a comment…