United States v. Eichman’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
102 federal appellate · 25 district · 100 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 345 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Rav v. City of St Paul Minnesota (1992), Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (1994)
102 federal appellate · 25 district · 100 state decisions — followed in 15 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1361 · 18 U.S.C. § 700 (Enhanced Federal Security Act of 2000)
Relies on United States v. O'Brien · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette · Cohen v. California · Texas v. Johnson
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 345 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the [statute] contains no explicit content-based limitation on the scope of prohibited conduct, it is nevertheless clear that the Government's asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Moreover, the precise language of the Act’s prohibitions confirms Congress’ interest in the communicative impact of flag destruction. The Act criminalizes the conduct of anyone who “knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 700 (a)(1) (Supp.1990). Each of the specified terms — with the possible exception of “bums”— unmistakably connotes disrespectful treatment of the flag and suggests a focus on those acts likely to damage the flag’s symbolic value.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.