Eichman, it can also be seen that judicial restraint is applied. Judicial restraint can be seen in the Eichman case because the Court respected the precedent decision of Texas v. Johnson, a case ruled about a year prior. In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled that desecrating the American flag is protected under First Amendment rights. The Court stated that it is not acceptable for the law to criminalize an action just because it is “offensive or disagreeable” in nature. In United States v. Eichman, the Supreme Court simply upheld this ruling, with just a few more provisions. When Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, the Court upheld the Johnson ruling by deciding on the Eichman case in a 5-4 decision. Because the Supreme Court ruled on United States v. Eichman with the intention of completely respecting the Texas v. Johnson decision, it can be seen that judicial restraint was
Eichman, it can also be seen that judicial restraint is applied. Judicial restraint can be seen in the Eichman case because the Court respected the precedent decision of Texas v. Johnson, a case ruled about a year prior. In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled that desecrating the American flag is protected under First Amendment rights. The Court stated that it is not acceptable for the law to criminalize an action just because it is “offensive or disagreeable” in nature. In United States v. Eichman, the Supreme Court simply upheld this ruling, with just a few more provisions. When Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, the Court upheld the Johnson ruling by deciding on the Eichman case in a 5-4 decision. Because the Supreme Court ruled on United States v. Eichman with the intention of completely respecting the Texas v. Johnson decision, it can be seen that judicial restraint was