MaddowBlog-The problem(s) with Trump's radical new executive order on flag burning

[LetMyPeopleVote]

In this country, a presidential executive order cannot override a Supreme Court ruling. On flag burning, Trump doesn't appear to care.

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/problems-trumps-radical-new-executive-order-flag-burning-rcna227025

A few weeks after winning the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump said he was prepared to take American citizenship away from those who burn the American flag, insisting there had to be meaningful “consequences” for such protests, even if the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that this is protected speech under the First Amendment.....

In his second term, however, he has apparently decided to take action — or something resembling action. NBC News reported:

Trump signed [an] executive order on Monday aimed at prosecuting people who ‘desecrate’ the American flag, a third fact sheet said. That order, first reported by Fox News, directs Bondi to ‘vigorously prosecute those who violate our laws in ways that involve desecrating the flag, and to pursue litigation to clarify the scope of First Amendment in this area.’

“What the penalty is going to be, if you burn a flag, you get one year in jail — no early exits, no nothing,” the president said, adding: “You will see flag burning stop immediately.”

Trump signs an executive order: "If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-08-25T15:11:52.954Z

......In this country, whether Trump likes it or not, a presidential executive order cannot override a Supreme Court ruling. In this country, whether Trump likes it or not, a president cannot create new criminal statutes — measures that would literally imprison Americans — without Congress.

As The New York Times’ Jamelle Bouie wrote in response to the Republican’s new order, “He literally thinks he is a king. ... This entire media blitz for when he signs executive orders is meant to create the impression that they are royal decrees.”

To the extent that the administration tries to implement this policy, litigation would be inevitable. Whether Trump assumes that the far-right high court would rule differently on the underlying issue than it did 35 years ago is unclear. Watch this space.

[sop]

1. "This entire media blitz for when he signs executive orders is meant to create the impression they are royal decrees."

Trump would not exist but for the attention corporate media gives him.

[doc03]

2. What about when someone mounts one

in the bed of their pickup and rips it to shreds in wind and weather?

[Johonny]

3. Depends, is this person black?

What's their bank account size?

Laws only apply to certain people these days

[walkingman]

4. I wake up every day wondering WTF this idiot is going to do today...

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. Deadline: Legal Blog--Trump wants to prosecute flag burners. The Supreme Court has already said that's illegal

The president said it was a “very sad court” that previously rejected flag-burning prosecutions on First Amendment grounds.

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-flag-burning-prosecute-executive-order-supreme-court-rcna227012

During the Oval Office ceremony, the president lamented that a “very sad court” — “I guess it was a 5-4 decision,” he said — “they called it freedom of speech.”

He appeared to be referring to long-standing Supreme Court precedent on the subject. In a 5-4 decision joined by Scalia, the court said in 1989’s Texas v. Johnson: “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

The court sided with Gregory Lee Johnson, who burned the flag in 1984 in Dallas during the Republican National Convention. The majority recounted that Johnson participated in a political protest called the “Republican War Chest Tour” against the Reagan administration and “certain Dallas-based corporations.” The majority said Johnson was convicted for “expressive conduct” and that he “did not threaten to disturb the peace.” It said the state’s interest in “preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity” couldn’t justify his prosecution......

With that background in mind, let’s take a closer look at the new executive order.

While its performative political aspect is clear, a notable legal aspect is the degree to which it acknowledges the limits of Trump’s power in this area. Though the order instructs the attorney general to prioritize law enforcement actions against flag-burning, it caveats these instructions by saying to do so in ways “consistent with the First Amendment” and “to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution.”

In other words: Do everything you can, except where you can’t. It’s unclear where that leaves any enforcement actions in reality.

So, the order’s legal effect is fairly limited by its own terms, putting aside whatever chilling practical effect it might have on people’s conduct — something that can’t be ignored these days.

By its own terms, trump's latest executive order is subject to the First Amendment. This is simply a stunt by trump that has no real legal effect.