The bill adds a new section to chapter 1 of title 18, U.S. Code, establishing an enhanced penalty when a defendant knowingly uses or causes the use of an open flame or incendiary device while committing a federal offense that involves property damage, obstruction of government operations, or public endangerment. The statutory definition of “incendiary device” is broad and expressly lists burning the United States flag as an example of covered conduct.
This change matters for prosecutors, defense counsel, and federal sentencing because it creates an automatic, additional minimum term of imprisonment—at least one year—on top of any other statutory penalties. The bill also includes a rule of construction disavowing application to purely protected First Amendment expressive conduct that does not involve criminal acts or threats to public safety, but the carve-out leaves significant room for legal dispute over its scope and application.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new 18 U.S.C. §28 that defines “incendiary device” and imposes an enhanced term of imprisonment of not less than 1 year if someone knowingly uses or causes the use of an open flame or incendiary device while committing a qualifying federal offense. The enhancement is added to any other penalty authorized by law.
Who It Affects
The change directly affects defendants charged in federal prosecutions involving property damage, obstruction of government operations, or conduct creating public endangerment when the conduct includes flames or incendiary devices. Federal prosecutors and sentencing courts will be the primary actors applying the enhancement; federal custodial systems will see the downstream effects.
Why It Matters
By creating a statutory sentencing floor tied to incendiary conduct, the bill changes charging and sentencing incentives—potentially encouraging federalization of cases and shaping plea negotiations. The explicit reference to flag burning and the First Amendment carve-out raise predictable constitutional and line-drawing issues for courts.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds a single, standalone statutory provision to chapter 1 of title 18. That provision does three things: it supplies a working definition of “incendiary device”; it prescribes an enhanced sentencing consequence when such a device or any open flame is knowingly used during certain federal offenses; and it includes a textual safeguard saying the section does not apply to purely protected expressive conduct under the First Amendment.
The enhancement is phrased as an additional term of imprisonment of not less than one year, to be imposed on top of whatever penalties the underlying federal offense already carries.
The definition is intentionally capacious. It covers “any flammable object, accelerant, fire-starting mechanism, or other apparatus intended to ignite fire,” and explicitly treats both improvised and commercially manufactured items as incendiary devices.
The statute also names burning the United States flag as an example within the enhancement provision, making flag burning part of the enumerated conduct that can trigger the added sentence when it occurs in the course of committing a qualifying federal offense.Operationally, the enhancement applies when the government proves that the defendant “knowingly uses or causes the use” of the open flame or device while committing a federal offense that involves property damage, obstruction of government operations, or public endangerment. The text does not define “knowingly” beyond the word itself nor does it narrow “public endangerment,” leaving standard mens rea and scope questions to courts.
Finally, the rule of construction attempts to preserve constitutional expressive conduct, but limits that protection to symbolic acts “not involving criminal acts or threats to public safety,” a phrase likely to require judicial interpretation in future cases.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new 18 U.S.C. §28 to chapter 1 of title 18 rather than amending an existing arson or explosives statute.
It defines “incendiary device” broadly to include flammable objects, accelerants, fire-starting mechanisms, and both improvised and commercially manufactured apparatus.
The enhancement triggers when a defendant knowingly uses or causes the use of an open flame or incendiary device while committing a federal offense involving property damage, obstruction of government operations, or public endangerment.
The enhanced penalty is a mandatory additional term of imprisonment of not less than one year, to be imposed in addition to any other penalty authorized by law.
The statute includes a rule of construction stating it does not apply to First Amendment–protected expressive symbolic conduct that does not involve criminal acts or threats to public safety.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the bill as the “Enhanced Penalties for Criminal Flag Burners Act.” This is a labeling provision only, but the title signals the drafters’ emphasis on flag burning as an example of covered conduct. Titles do not alter statutory meaning, but they guide legislative intent arguments and public framing.
Findings and purpose
Contains three findings: that unauthorized incendiary use during federal offenses threatens public safety and federal property; that desecration or destruction of U.S. symbols in connection with federal crimes amplifies danger; and that burning the flag in furtherance of a federal crime indicates an intent to provoke unrest or intimidate. The stated purpose is to enhance penalties when incendiary devices or open flames are used in federal offenses. These findings do not create operative law but will be used to support congressional intent if courts review the statute.
Addition of 18 U.S.C. §28 — definition, trigger, enhancement, and carve-out
Adds a new statute with three core subsections. Subsection (a) defines “incendiary device” broadly and includes both improvised and commercially manufactured items. Subsection (b) sets the substantive rule: a person who, while committing a qualifying federal offense (property damage, obstruction of government operations, or public endangerment), knowingly uses or causes the use of an open flame or incendiary device—including burning the U.S. flag—must receive an additional prison term of not less than one year. Subsection (c) is a rule-of-construction stating that the section does not apply to First Amendment–protected expressive conduct that does not itself involve criminal acts or threats; this provision narrows the statute on its face but leaves substantial interpretive work to courts regarding what conduct remains protected.
Clerical amendment to table of sections
Updates the chapter 1 table of sections to include the new §28. This is a technical step required to insert the new statutory heading into the printed U.S. Code and has no substantive legal effect beyond enabling citation and retrieval.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice 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
- Federal prosecutors — obtain a clear, statutory sentencing enhancement to use at charge-selection and plea negotiations, increasing leverage in cases involving flames or incendiary devices.
- Owners and managers of federal property (e.g., National Park Service, GSA) — gain a statutory tool intended to deter incendiary acts that threaten federal infrastructure and personnel.
- Victims of arson or coordinated attacks on federal operations — may see longer aggregate sentences for perpetrators when the enhancement is applied, increasing perceived accountability.
Who Bears the Cost
- Defendants prosecuted federally for offenses that include incendiary conduct — face an automatic additional minimum imprisonment term that limits plea flexibility and amplifies sentencing exposure.
- Federal courts and Bureau of Prisons — could face modest to significant downstream burdens if the enhancement increases average sentence lengths or shifts more cases to federal court.
- Defense counsel and public defenders — must litigate scope and applicability (e.g., the First Amendment carve-out, mens rea questions), increasing litigation costs and trial preparation burden.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between protecting public safety and federal property from incendiary, potentially violent acts and preserving constitutional protections for expressive conduct; the statute seeks deterrence through a fixed sentencing enhancement but risks chilling lawful expression and shifting prosecutorial strategy without clear doctrinal markers to distinguish protected symbolic acts from criminal incendiary conduct.
The bill attempts a narrow carve-out for protected expressive conduct, but that language is inherently context-dependent: what qualifies as “expressive symbolic conduct not involving criminal acts or threats to public safety” will require district and appellate courts to draw fine lines. A peaceful, isolated act of flag burning is likely protected under existing First Amendment doctrine; the statute is aimed at incendiary conduct that accompanies criminal actions.
Still, prosecutors may argue that the enhancement applies in many protest contexts where obstruction or minor property damage accompanies symbolic burning, creating a risk of chilling protected expression through prosecutorial threat.
Two important implementation gaps stand out. First, the statute uses the term “knowingly” without more precision about mens rea for the underlying offense versus the incendiary act; courts will have to resolve whether “knowingly” requires proof of an intent to cause harm or simply awareness that one used an open flame.
Second, the categories that trigger the enhancement—“property damage,” “obstruction of government operations,” and “public endangerment”—are broadly phrased and overlap with many existing federal offenses. That overlap may encourage prosecutors to prefer federal venues when incendiary conduct occurs, raising federalization concerns and uneven enforcement across jurisdictions.
Finally, the one-year minimum is additive to other penalties, but the bill does not recalibrate sentencing guidelines or allocate resources for the higher custody population that could result.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.