Texas v. Johnson

Political reaction quickly mounted to the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson decision and the striking down of the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The burning of an American flag had become a valid gesture of expressive freedom. A constitutional amendment prohibiting the desecration of the U.S. flag was introduced in Congress in 1995, and reintroduced again in 1997.

Amendment proponents led by the Citizens Flag Alliance (CFA) contended freedom of expression guarantees were never absolute, and the flag, a national symbol of U.S. society, deserved protection from desecration. CFA rebuffed the idea flag burning is "speech." Rather, they regarded it "conduct" outside constitutional protection. Proponents maintained the proposals did not restrict freedom of speech since persons could still freely speak or write their views on the government or flag.

Amendment opponents including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) insisted the new amendment would restrict the First Amendment's freedom of expression guarantees. They saw the flag as a symbol standing for the freedom every American enjoys including the right to burn that symbol. The ACLU argued a flag burning ban would open the door for legislators to restrict other individual freedoms. Besides, the ACLU considered flag burning as a rare event not meriting a constitutional amendment.