H.J. Res. 101 proposes a one-sentence amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” The resolution would become part of the Constitution only if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states within seven years of submission.
The practical effect, if ratified, is to authorize Congress to pass laws criminalizing or otherwise regulating physical acts that desecrate the flag. The amendment’s terse text leaves most operational details — definitions, mens rea, penalties, and exceptions — to subsequent federal legislation and judicial interpretation, creating immediate questions for lawmakers, prosecutors, courts, and civil liberties stakeholders.
At a Glance
What It Does
The joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment that explicitly grants Congress the authority to prohibit the physical desecration of the U.S. flag. It contains no statutory penalties or definitions; it simply allocates power to Congress to enact implementing laws.
Who It Affects
Individuals who engage in flag burning or other physical desecration, Congress as the body empowered to legislate under the amendment, state legislatures as ratifiers, and federal and state prosecutors and courts that would enforce or interpret any resulting statutes. Civil liberties organizations and public-interest litigants also stand to be directly affected.
Why It Matters
By altering the constitutional text, the amendment would remove (or at least alter) a constitutional barrier that has constrained Congress from banning flag desecration, shifting the dispute from judicial doctrine to the political branches and prompting new criminal statutes, enforcement policies, and litigation over statutory scope and constitutional guarantees.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.J. Res. 101 offers a single, targeted modification to the Constitution: it gives Congress explicit authority to prohibit the ‘‘physical desecration’’ of the American flag.
The proposal does not itself create a criminal offense or regulatory regime; rather, it functions as a constitutional authorization that would allow Congress to pass laws directed at physical acts involving the flag.
The resolution follows the standard constitutional-amendment process: passage by two-thirds of each chamber of Congress is instructive here because it is already a joint resolution, and the amendment becomes valid only after ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. The text also contains a seven-year window for that state-by-state ratification, a temporal limit that Congress has commonly used in modern amendments.Although compact, the amendment raises important gaps that future statutes must fill.
The phrase ‘‘physical desecration’’ is undefined, so Congress would determine whether the term covers burning, tearing, soiling, mutilation, or other conduct; whether symbolic uses tied to political protest fall inside; and whether intent or knowledge (mens rea) is required. The amendment does not specify penalties, criminal classifications, civil remedies, or limiting principles such as time, place, and manner rules.Because the change would be constitutional, it would permit federal legislation that a court could not strike down on the ground that the Constitution itself protects flag desecration as symbolic speech.
Still, statutes enacted under the amendment could face challenges on other constitutional grounds (for example, vagueness or due process) and would necessarily require drafting choices about scope, exemptions, and enforcement mechanisms to withstand judicial and practical scrutiny.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Operative wording is one sentence: “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”, The resolution includes a seven-year ratification deadline and requires ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states to become part of the Constitution.
The proposed amendment contains no definitions, penalties, exceptions, or enforcement language — it delegates those details to future congressional legislation and judicial interpretation.
H.J. Res. 101 was introduced in the House on June 13, 2025, by Rep. Steve Womack and referred to the House Judiciary Committee; it is a proposal for a constitutional amendment (not an immediate criminal law).
If ratified, the amendment would change the constitutional baseline and permit Congress to enact nationwide prohibitions on physical flag desecration that would not be invalidated on the ground that the Constitution itself protects such conduct as expressive activity.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Standard joint-resolution preamble and legislative referral
The resolution follows the conventional House joint-resolution format: it opens with the caption noting sponsorship and referral to the Committee on the Judiciary. That formality signals the bill’s legislative origin and places it within the procedural pathway for proposing constitutional amendments, which are actions of Congress requiring later state ratification rather than ordinary lawmaking.
Grants Congress authority to prohibit physical desecration of the flag
This is the entirety of the proposed amendment’s substantive change: a single sentence that vests Congress with power to prohibit ‘‘physical desecration’’ of the flag. Because the provision is framed as a grant of power rather than a prohibition itself, it does not itself create criminal liability; instead, it clears a constitutional obstacle that courts have recognized in prior First Amendment jurisprudence, leaving the form and content of prohibitory measures to future congressional statutes.
Three‑fourths ratification requirement and seven‑year deadline
The resolution attaches the commonly used ratification mechanics: it must be ratified by the legislatures of three‑fourths of the states to become part of the Constitution and includes a seven‑year deadline measured from the date of submission for ratification. That time limit constrains the window for state ratification and is binding on this specific amendment proposal; it also affects political and legislative strategy by creating a finite period for advocacy in the states.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Civil Rights across all five countries.
Explore Civil Rights in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Veterans’ organizations and flag-protection advocacy groups — they gain a constitutional pathway that enables Congress to enact national prohibitions addressing conduct those groups view as deeply offensive and harmful to civic symbolism.
- Federal and state prosecutors supporting flag-protection laws — the amendment would authorize Congress to craft offenses and enforcement mechanisms enabling prosecution at the federal level.
- Members of Congress and state legislators advocating restrictive flag-desecration measures — the amendment supplies them with the constitutional authority necessary to enact such laws without facing invalidation based on a constitutional right protecting the conduct.
- Communities and institutions seeking uniform national standards — ratification would permit a single federal standard rather than a patchwork of differing state laws and court rulings.
Who Bears the Cost
- Protesters and expressive actors who use physical acts involving the flag as political expression — they would face potential criminalization or other legal penalties for conduct previously defended as symbolic speech.
- Civil liberties and public-interest legal organizations — they would likely need to litigate challenges to statutes enacted under the amendment and expend resources defending broad free-speech principles.
- State governments and local law enforcement — states may face political pressure to ratify or resist, and enforcement responsibilities could impose operational and budgetary burdens on police and courts if federal statutes authorize federal or local prosecutions.
- Municipalities and public institutions — adopting and enforcing new rules about flag use may create administrative costs, training needs, and liability questions for public employers, schools, and event organizers.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The amendment pits two legitimate public goods against one another: the collective interest in protecting a unifying national symbol and the individual right to expressive conduct, including protest that may employ shocking or disrespectful acts. Granting Congress power to prohibit physical desecration resolves one problem—enabling legislative remedies—but does so by authorizing laws that inevitably limit expressive freedom; the central dilemma is how to protect the flag’s symbolic value without unduly silencing politically charged speech.
The amendment’s brevity is both its point and its main problem. It delegates substantive choices — what counts as ‘‘physical desecration,’’ whether intent must be proven, whether private conduct on private property is covered, and what penalties apply — to later legislation.
That delegation creates a drafting burden: Congress must decide whether to define narrow, content-neutral elements (for example, acts that physically damage or destroy a flag) or to write broad prohibitions that could sweep in protected conduct. Those choices will determine whether laws survive other constitutional challenges such as vagueness, overbreadth, or due process claims.
The amendment also raises federalism and enforcement questions. A federal statute enacted under this power could preempt inconsistent state laws or coexist with them, but states retain independent authority to criminalize or regulate flag conduct absent preemption.
Additionally, although the amendment aims to eliminate a constitutional barrier to prohibition, courts would still play a central role in interpreting any statute’s scope and safeguards. Litigation risk will therefore shift from a facial First Amendment bar to disputes over statutory text, mens rea, exceptions for protest or religious practice, and enforcement discretion.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.