October Term 2002 · Docket 01-1107

Does a law banning cross-burning to threaten harm violate free speech?

Virginia argues its law targets only threatening acts. Black argues the law targets a specific symbol.

Official caption
Virginia v. Black
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Virginia claims the statute protects freedom from fear. It bans only cross-burning used to threaten harm. It does not ban all cross-burning. It avoids playing favorites unlike prior cases.

    Black claims targeting a specific symbol violates the First Amendment. It engages in content and viewpoint discrimination. The state should use content-neutral alternatives. Courts should err on the side of speech freedom.

    Virginia argues cross-burning is a particularly threatening form of conduct. The state singled it out with intent to intimidate. This distinguishes it from general speech protections.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Virginia seeks to uphold its cross-burning statute. Black seeks to strike it down as unconstitutional.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 11, 2002.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Virginia wants the Court to uphold its cross-burning statute.

Black wants the Court to strike down the statute.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Virginia argues the law targets only threats of bodily harm.

Black argues the law discriminates against a specific symbol.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Stevens asked about brandishing an automatic weapon in someone's face.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the limits of speech laws targeting specific symbols. It balances freedom from fear against free expression. The outcome shapes how states regulate threatening conduct.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON