New Act Adds Mandatory Year in Prison for Using Fire, Including Flag Burning, During Federal Crimes

This new piece of legislation, titled the Enhanced Penalties for Criminal Flag Burners Act, aims to toughen the punishment for anyone who uses fire or an incendiary device while committing certain federal crimes. The core of the bill is simple: if you knowingly use an open flame or a fire-starting tool while committing a federal offense that involves property damage, messing with government operations, or endangering the public, you’re looking at a mandatory minimum of at least one extra year in prison on top of whatever sentence you get for the main crime. This applies even if the act involved burning the U.S. flag, provided it happens during the commission of those specified federal offenses (Sec. 3).

The Fine Print on Fire and Federal Crimes

Congress is essentially saying that using fire during a crime is an aggravating factor because it creates a bigger risk for people and property, and signals an intent to cause serious chaos (Sec. 2). The bill defines an “incendiary device” broadly, including anything flammable, accelerants, or any tool designed to start a fire. Think of it this way: If someone is charged with a federal crime like destruction of government property and they used a can of lighter fluid and a match to do it, that’s where the extra year kicks in. For the average person, this is meant to be a clear deterrent against using fire or explosives during protests or other illegal acts.

Where the Flag Burning Comes In

The name of the bill, and the specific mention of flag burning, is what makes this complex. Flag burning is often a form of political protest, and the Supreme Court has ruled that symbolic acts like that are generally protected speech. The bill tries to navigate this by saying the enhanced penalty doesn't apply to actions protected by the First Amendment. However, it does apply if the flag burning happens during the commission of an otherwise illegal federal act, like blocking a federal highway or damaging a federal building. For instance, if a protestor is convicted of trespassing on federal land (a federal crime) and burned a flag while doing it, the prosecutor could argue for the mandatory one-year enhancement.

The Real-World Impact on Sentencing

Mandatory minimum sentences are a big deal because they tie the judge’s hands. If a defendant is convicted under this new section, the judge must add at least one year to the sentence, regardless of the specific circumstances. While this gives prosecutors a stronger tool to deter dangerous acts involving fire, it also means less flexibility in sentencing, which can sometimes lead to disproportionately harsh outcomes. For activists and protestors, this adds a significant layer of risk: engaging in acts that could be construed as minor federal offenses (like certain types of civil disobedience) while using fire, even symbolically, now carries a much higher, non-negotiable prison term. The vagueness of where “protected speech” ends and “unprotected criminal act” begins when fire is involved during a protest is where the legal battles will likely center. The goal is public safety, but the effect could be a chilling of expressive conduct that brushes up against federal law.