The Trump administration is going with the argument that although flag burning is protected speech when it is done to incite illegal action it isn't protected a

The Trump administration is going with the argument that although flag burning is protected speech when it is done to incite illegal action it isn't protected and that protestors who are burning flags are doing it to incite illegal action. This is, of course, absolute bullshit. But there's been a trend for the past several decades of the courts practically limiting speech rights for disfavored groups without technically limiting their speech rights. Nieves v Bartlett is perhaps the clearest example, where arresting somebody to retaliate against their speech (even if everybody agrees that this was the proximate reason for the arrest) is fine as long as there is any other possible justification for the arrest.