This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

O'Brien (D) publicly burned his draft card. This violated the Universal Military Training and Service Act. D claimed that his burning was intended to influence other people to adopt his anti-war beliefs. D 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 District Court held that the statute, on its face, did not abridge First Amendment rights, that the court was not competent to inquire into the motives of Congress in enacting the 1965 Amendment, and that the Amendment was a reasonable exercise of the power of Congress to raise armies. The Court of Appeals held the 1965 Amendment unconstitutional as a law abridging freedom of speech. The Court of Appeals was of the opinion that conduct punishable under the 1965 Amendment was already punishable under a nonpossession regulation, and consequently, the Amendment served no valid purpose. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.