Stromberg v. California   (1931)

Facts:  Yetta Stromberg, a member of the Young Communist League, was a supervisor at a summer camp for teenagers.  She taught history and economics, including “class consciousness, the solidarity of the workers, and the theory that the workers of the world are of one blood and brothers all.”  Each day, Stromberg led the campers in raising a camp-made replica of the Soviet flag, and the students saluted and recited a pledge “to the workers red flag, and to the cause of which it stands; one aim throughout our lives, freedom for the working class.” 

 Stromberg was tried and convicted with violating a California law that states:  “Any person who displays a red flag, banner or badge of any flag, badge, banner, or device of any color or form whatever in any public place or in any meeting place or public assembly ... as a sign, symbol, or emblem of opposition to organized government or as an invitation or stimulus to anarchistic action or as an aid to propaganda that is of a seditious character is guilty of a felony.”

Lower Court:  Stromberg was convicted in state court, but the prosecution did not specify which part of the law she was charged with violating, and the verdict did not specify of which part she was guilty.  The California Supreme Court refused to hear the case, and Stromberg appealed to the U.S.   Supreme Court.

Issue:              Can a state prohibit symbolic speech in opposition to organized government without violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Court held:     Reversed (7-2)          Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes for the majority

·        Speaking in favor of change in government is a fundamental right, and a state cannot prohibit an individual from using symbols to express ideas in opposition to organized government.  Since Stromberg may have been convicted on her opposition to organized government in the U.S., her conviction cannot stand.

Rule:               Use of symbols to express ideas about politics is protected.

Significance:  Although the Court did not discuss the use of symbols at length, it did recognize that flags can serve as a symbol that could function as part of the political discourse in a free society.