Doctrinal Development or Devolution?: An Examination of the Incidental Regulation Test from Texas V. Johnson through Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project

By Hansman, Raleigh E. | South Dakota Law Review, Spring 2012 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Doctrinal Development or Devolution?: An Examination of the Incidental Regulation Test from Texas V. Johnson through Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project


Hansman, Raleigh E., South Dakota Law Review


In 1968, the United States Supreme Court proffered a new Track Two test, via Texas v. Johnson, with the ability to constitutionally validate government regulations that incidentally burdened free speech rights. Over the past fifty years, this "incidental regulation test" has volleyed back and forth between being either a pro-plaintiff or a go-to government doctrine. In the 2010 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project case the Court refused to apply the incidental regulation test despite the government's request and the test's relevance to the matter at issue. The Court's departure from the incidental regulation test's current evolutionary status and generally accepted constitutional principles was incorrect and inappropriate. As a result, more questions than answers have been generated as to the incidental regulation test's future utility and application.

I. INTRODUCTION

The United States Constitution's First Amendment guarantees are the most highly prized, coveted, and guarded of fundamental rights. (1) When government-enacted regulations, whether local, state, or national, infringe upon these freedoms, litigation becomes inevitable. (2) The standard upon which the regulation is analyzed is determined by whether the regulation is content-based or content-neutral. (3) This track-based tug-of-war becomes the determinative factor as to the level of contravention one's First Amendment rights will suffer. (4)

First, this article explores the factual and procedural history of U.S. v. O'Brien, (5) which spawned the incidental regulation test. (6) A brief discussion of the incidental regulation test's progression from inception to 1989 follows. (7) This note then details the factual and procedural history of Texas v. Johnson, (8) which refined the incidental regulation test's applicability. (9) It continues with a detailed survey of cases that explore the incidental regulation test's development post-Johnson. (10) Next, the article details the factual and procedural history of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. (11)

The article's second section provides an analysis of the test's refinement and conversion from a government-preferred to a plaintiff-captured doctrinal standard. (12) A discussion as to the improper application of the incidental regulation test, including whether the test's proper application would have changed Holder s ultimate holding, follows. (13) Additionally, this note will illustrate the proper application of the incidental regulation test to the Holder facts and how, in its appropriate function, it would have facilitated a stronger plaintiff position. (14)

II. BACKGROUND

A. U.S. v. O'BRIEN: THE CREATION OF THE INCIDENTAL REGULATION TEST

David Paul O'Brien, along with three colleagues, burned his Selective Service registration form on the South Boston Courthouse steps on March 31, 1966. (15) The crowd that witnessed the burning subsequently attacked O'Brien and his friends. (16) Three Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") agents were among the crowd members and assisted O'Brien to safety within the courthouse. (17) O'Brien informed the FBI "that he had burned his registration certificate because of his beliefs, knowing that he was violating federal law." (18)

O'Brien was indicted under Title 50, App., United States Code, section 462(b). (19) This statute had been amended in 1965, with its added language rendering O'Brien's registration card burning illegal. (20) Specifically, the amendment made it an offense for any person "who forges, alters, knowingly destroys, knowingly mutilates, or in any manner changes any such certificate." (21)

At trial, O'Brien challenged the amendment on free speech grounds. (22) "O'Brien argued that the 1965 Amendment prohibiting the knowing destruction or mutilation of certificates was unconstitutional because it was enacted to abridge free speech, and because it served no legitimate legislative purpose.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Doctrinal Development or Devolution?: An Examination of the Incidental Regulation Test from Texas V. Johnson through Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?