Summary
The Supreme Court's decision sustained the constitutionality of a Texas statute prohibiting public intoxication under the Eighth Amendment. The Court differentiated this case from Robinson v. California, emphasizing the criminalization of conduct as opposed to the mere status of being intoxicated.
The Texas v. Johnson Decision
The Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson affirmed the constitutionality of a Texas law prohibiting public intoxication. The Court carefully differentiated this case from Robinson v. California, emphasizing that the Texas law criminalized the act of public intoxication—a behavior—rather than the status of being an alcoholic, as in Robinson. This distinction was central to the Court's finding that the Texas law did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The Supreme Court and Public Intoxication
The Supreme Court recently sided with Texas in a case involving a law against public drunkenness. The justices decided the law didn't break the Eighth Amendment's rules against cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling is different from a past case, Robinson v. California, because it centers on the act of being drunk in public, not simply the condition of being an alcoholic.
The Supreme Court Case
The Supreme Court said a Texas law against being drunk in public is okay. It's not against the rules of the Constitution. The Court explained it's different from another case because this is about what someone does (being drunk in public), not who they are (being an alcoholic).