## Facts

- Valarie Goguen wore a small United States flag sewn to the seat of his blue jeans in public in Leominster, Massachusetts.
- He was arrested and charged under a Massachusetts law making it a crime to “publicly … treat[] contemptuously the flag of the United States.”
- A Worcester County jury convicted Goguen, and the trial court sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment.
- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction.
- Goguen sought federal habeas relief; the federal district court granted relief, concluding the “treats contemptuously” phrase was unconstitutional, and ordered his release.
- The First Circuit affirmed, and the case proceeded for further review.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory phrase “publicly … treats contemptuously the flag of the United States” is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether Goguen adequately presented the vagueness claim in state court to permit federal habeas review.
3. Whether the statute’s restriction on “contemptuous” treatment of the flag impermissibly burdens protected expression.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the judgment granting habeas relief and invalidated Goguen’s conviction.
- The “treats contemptuously” clause was held void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Court held Goguen sufficiently raised the substance of his vagueness claim in state court, allowing federal habeas review.
- The Court rejected arguments that surrounding statutory language, a supposed “hard-core” application, or implied limits (to “actual” flags or “intentional” contempt) cured the vagueness.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires criminal laws to give fair notice of what conduct is forbidden and to provide enforceable standards that constrain police, prosecutors, judges, and juries.
- A statute is unconstitutionally vague when it fails to define an ascertainable standard of conduct and effectively permits enforcement based on subjective preferences.
- When a state’s highest court has not supplied a narrowing construction, a federal court evaluates the challenged statutory language as written for vagueness.
- The fact that related provisions prohibit more specific conduct does not save a conviction obtained solely under an undefined, standardless clause.
- A defendant preserves a federal constitutional claim for habeas review when he fairly presents the substance of that claim to the state courts.

## Conclusion

The Court set aside Goguen’s conviction because the Massachusetts prohibition on “contemptuous” treatment of the U.S. flag lacked a clear standard, failed to provide adequate notice, and invited arbitrary enforcement, violating due process.


Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974)