SJR58 proposes adding one article to the Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." The joint resolution sets a seven-year ratification deadline and does not itself create a crime or penalties; it merely authorizes Congress to enact laws that would criminalize or otherwise prohibit acts Congress deems "physical desecration."
This matters because current Supreme Court precedent protects flag burning and similar conduct as expressive speech (Texas v. Johnson, U.S. v.
Eichman). The amendment, if ratified, would remove that constitutional bar and enable federal (and potentially state) criminal statutes regulating conduct involving the physical flag.
The text’s brevity leaves crucial questions—definitions, mens rea, scope, civil vs. criminal remedies—for Congress and the courts to resolve, creating legal and enforcement uncertainty for prosecutors, civil liberties advocates, and event organizers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to prohibit "physical desecration" of the U.S. flag. It does not define "physical desecration," set penalties, or spell out enforcement mechanisms; those details would be supplied by subsequent federal legislation.
Who It Affects
Prosecutors and federal legislators would gain authority to draft and enforce new statutes; protest organizers and individuals who burn, deface, or otherwise physically mistreat a flag would be directly targeted by future laws. Civil rights groups, defense counsel, and courts would confront new litigation testing statutory definitions and mens rea requirements.
Why It Matters
The amendment would overturn the core holding of two Supreme Court cases that protect flag burning as symbolic speech, enabling Congress to criminalize conduct previously deemed constitutionally protected. Because the amendment is terse and categorical, it shifts policy questions—how broadly to regulate, what penalties to impose, and how to limit chilling effects—into the legislative and judicial arenas.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SJR58 proposes a one-sentence constitutional amendment: it grants Congress power to prohibit the "physical desecration" of the U.S. flag. As written, the resolution does not itself make any act illegal; it changes the Constitution so that statutory prohibitions on flag desecration would no longer be vulnerable to the First Amendment arguments that the Supreme Court relied on in Texas v.
Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990).
In short, the amendment clears the constitutional obstacle to federal prohibition of certain expressive conduct involving the flag.
Because the amendment contains no definitions, the next step under this proposal is that Congress would draft implementing legislation. That legislation would need to define key terms (what counts as the "flag," what conduct qualifies as "physical desecration," and whether display of a picture or virtual depiction is covered), establish mental-state requirements (intent, recklessness, negligence), and set penalties and enforcement mechanisms.
Those drafting choices will determine how narrowly or broadly the prohibition operates—whether it targets deliberate, communicative acts like burning a flag in protest, or sweeps in accidental or nonexpressive acts such as damaging a flag through ordinary wear or destruction in a private, non-public context.The amendment also raises federalism and enforcement questions. The text authorizes Congress; it does not say anything about state authority.
States can already pass or retain laws, but ratification would remove the constitutional shield for defendants in federal prosecutions and strengthen the legal footing for state laws challenged on First Amendment grounds. Practically, federal statutes would likely put prosecutors and courts at the center of interpretive disputes: how to craft mens rea elements, whether to create civil penalties or criminal sanctions, and how to avoid content-based regulation of speech.
Those choices will shape whether the amendment produces narrow, targeted laws or broader restrictions with significant chilling effects on protest and symbolic expression.Finally, the amendment’s single-sentence form leaves open litigation over scope and application. Courts will be asked to interpret both the amendment and any implementing statutes—deciding, for instance, whether nonphysical depictions, commercial uses, or symbolic acts involving images fall inside the prohibition.
Because the constitutional text uses the word "prohibit," it also invites debate about whether Congress could authorize civil remedies, injunctive relief, restitution, or only criminal penalties. Those unresolved drafting and interpretive questions make the amendment a framework for future battles rather than a self-executing rule.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Exact proposed text: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.", The joint resolution includes a seven-year deadline for ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.
The amendment authorizes Congress to act but does not itself define "physical desecration," set criminal penalties, or create enforcement procedures.
If ratified, the amendment would eliminate the First Amendment barrier established in Texas v. Johnson (1989) and U.S. v. Eichman (1990) that invalidated flag-desecration statutes.
SJR58 was introduced in the Senate (119th Congress) on June 12, 2025 by Senators Steve Daines and Mike Crapo; its text is a single new constitutional article rather than a multi-section statute.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Text granting Congress authority to prohibit flag desecration
This is the operative sentence of the resolution: it directly amends the Constitution to give Congress power to prohibit "the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." Its structure is declarative and categorical—Congress "shall have power"—which supplies clear constitutional authorization for future federal legislation. Because it is a constitutional grant of power rather than implementing legislation, it does not itself criminalize conduct or create penalties.
Seven-year ratification window and standard amendment procedure
The resolution follows standard amendment procedure: it must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states to become part of the Constitution. The text includes a seven-year limit for ratification, a common temporal constraint that gives the amendment process a built-in expiration if states do not act within that timeframe. That deadline matters for state political strategy and for any legal disputes about late ratification attempts.
No definitions, penalties, or procedural rules — Congress must supply details
The amendment leaves every operational choice to future federal legislation. It does not define the trigger words: what counts as a "flag" (statuary flags, replicas, images), what counts as "physical desecration" (burning, tearing, stepping on), or what mental state is required (intent to insult, reckless disregard). It also does not address penalties—criminal vs. civil sanctions—nor enforcement mechanisms. Those omissions create a blank slate but also immediate ambiguity that will shape how broadly courts will interpret implementing statutes.
Overturning judicial protections for symbolic flag speech
By explicitly authorizing Congress to prohibit physical desecration, the amendment would effectively nullify the constitutional basis for the Supreme Court decisions that treated flag burning as protected speech. Once ratified, courts would evaluate implementing statutes under the new constitutional text, not under the First Amendment holdings in Texas v. Johnson and Eichman. That shift changes the baseline for judicial review and transfers dispute focus from constitutional prohibition to statutory construction (e.g., vagueness, overbreadth, mens rea).
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 and flag-protection advocacy groups — they gain a clearer legal path to statutory prohibitions that honor symbolic protections they seek.
- Members of Congress favoring a national standard — the amendment provides explicit constitutional authority to craft uniform federal laws rather than relying on a patchwork of state statutes.
- State legislatures seeking reinforcement of existing laws — ratification would weaken federal constitutional preemption arguments that have been used to strike down state prohibitions on flag desecration.
Who Bears the Cost
- Protesters and activists who use flag burning or similar acts as political speech — they would face the risk of new criminal or civil penalties and a heightened chill on expressive conduct.
- Defense attorneys and civil libertarians — they will need to litigate new statutory definitions and mens rea questions and will bear litigation costs challenging overbroad statutes.
- Federal and state prosecutors and courts — they will incur enforcement and adjudication costs, and will confront difficult fact patterns (intent, context) that make prosecutions legally and politically sensitive.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between the government's interest in protecting a national symbol and the constitutional protection of symbolic political speech: granting Congress power to prohibit "physical desecration" would vindicate symbolic and patriotic concerns but would also empower laws that could criminalize politically charged expressive conduct, risking chilling of dissent and generating hard line-drawing problems for prosecutors and judges.
The amendment's brevity creates both political clarity and legal uncertainty. On one hand, it answers a narrow constitutional question—did the Constitution bar Congress from prohibiting flag desecration?—in the negative.
On the other hand, it leaves open every practical drafting decision: how to define "physical desecration," which mental state to require, whether statutes should target only public, intentional expressive acts, and which remedies (criminal fines, imprisonment, civil penalties, or injunctive relief) are permissible. Those choices determine whether future laws will survive doctrinal challenges on vagueness, overbreadth, or equal protection grounds and whether they will provoke chilling effects on legitimate protest.
Implementation also raises federalism and enforcement trade-offs. The amendment authorizes Congress but does not expressly preempt states from enacting their own laws; state statutes could remain or be strengthened, producing inconsistent standards and prosecutorial outcomes across jurisdictions.
From an enforcement perspective, proving intent in expressive contexts is difficult, and selective enforcement risks (targeting particular speakers or movements) are real. Finally, the amendment's focus on "physical" acts leaves open whether nonphysical symbolic acts—digital images, simulated flag depictions, or commercial uses—are covered, which could spawn litigation about the limits of the ban and the scope of congressional power.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.