VIRGINIA v. BLACK (538 U.S. 343)

PRIMA FACIE (meaning)

Apparent nature of something upon observation.

BRIEF FACT SUMMARY

Black was convicted under the Virginia's cross-burning statute. He argued that it was an unconstitutional law because under it, any cross-burning was treated as PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENTION TO CREATE FEAR in another. - Black said that the law was unconstitutional because it took ANY AND EVERY ACT of cross-burning as intending to create fear.

VIRGINIA v. BLACK (538 U.S. 343)

Black was prosecuted for burning a cross, and convicted of the same by a jury, under the Cross-burning statute of Virginia, which bans cross burning with the object of creating fear in a person or a group. The Virginia Supreme Court upheld the decision and Black appealed.

JUSTICE SCALIA (Concurrence)

I agree with the Court that a state MAY prohibit the burning of a cross when carried out the intent to threaten harm, without violating the 1st Amendment, but the majority decision of the Court to declare the prima facie provision of the Virginia statute invalid, seems unjustified.

ISSUE

Is a cross-burning statute unconstitutional in viewing any such incident as PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE of having an intention to create fear in, or threat to another person or group?

MAJORITY VOTE (7 votes for Virginia)

J. O'Connor: The burning of a cross is always a hate symbol, though it may sometimes also include the idea of threat. Virginia may ban the burning of a cross DONE with the intent to threaten because it is a very deadly threat. This is NOT a violation of the 1st Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Virginia has the freedom to choose to enact laws against this particular form of intimidation just because cross-burning has a long history of being followed soon afterwards by violence. (JJ. Rehnquist, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)

MINORITY VOTE

J. Thomas: The mistake made by the majority is in interpreting an activity as an expression. Hatred MAY be expressed but law DOESN'T ALLOW inducing terror or fear of harm in others to express such hatred. (J. Scalia)

DISCUSSION

The Court made it clear that in this statute, THE PROVISION AT FAULT WAS THE ONE WHICH ALLOWED ALL CROSS-BURNING TO BE TREATED AS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO THREATEN, REGARDLESS OF ALL CONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD BE NEEDED TO INDEPENDENTLY ARRIVE AT SUCH A CONCLUSION. However, several legal experts concur with J. Thomas's dissenting opinion that an act of cross-burning carries no other meaning but that pf intimidation.