Obama Judge Blocks DOJ Effort to Remove ‘86 47’ Flag Near National Mall
A federal judge has temporarily blocked federal authorities from preventing a progressive advocacy group from displaying an “86 47” flag near the National Mall, ruling that the expression does not rise to the level of a threat against President Donald Trump and is instead protected political speech under the First Amendment.
The decision marks a setback for federal officials who argued the slogan could be interpreted as threatening in the current political climate.
The ruling involves Accountability Now USA, a left-leaning activist group that has been staging demonstrations outside a federal courthouse in Washington, D.C.
The group has used signage featuring the phrase “86 47,” a slogan that has drawn national attention amid broader debates over political rhetoric, free speech, and the boundaries of protest messaging.
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee, issued a two-week temporary restraining order preventing the National Park Service from revoking the group’s permit over the display.
In his ruling, Moss rejected the government’s position that the phrase amounted to an unlawful threat, emphasizing that constitutional protections apply even to provocative or unpopular political expression.
In his written opinion, the judge acknowledged concerns about political violence but concluded that context matters in determining whether speech crosses the legal line into a “true threat.”
He wrote that, in this case, the message more reasonably reflected advocacy for President Trump’s removal from office rather than any intent to encourage harm.
A central issue in the case was the meaning of the phrase “86.”
Government attorneys argued that recent political tensions had given the term a more dangerous connotation, pointing to heightened security concerns surrounding public officials.
However, the court noted that the term has long been used in American slang to mean “to remove” or “to get rid of,” and that it does not carry a single fixed interpretation.
Moss pointed to historical dictionary definitions, noting the term dates back decades and has been used in everyday language in non-violent contexts.
He rejected the argument that recent incidents of political violence should automatically redefine the meaning of long-standing expressions when evaluating protected speech under the Constitution.
As part of its case, the Department of Justice (DOJ) cited recent security incidents and argued that ambiguous political slogans could be perceived as encouragement for violence against elected officials.
According to Newsmax, officials pointed to the broader threat environment surrounding public figures as justification for restricting the display.
Court filings also show that Secret Service agents interviewed participants in the demonstration.
Those involved stated they supported removing President Trump from office but denied any intent to promote or encourage violence.
One participant told investigators they viewed the message strictly in political terms and expressed support for impeachment rather than harm, according to ABC News.
In the end, the court concluded that the government had not met the high constitutional threshold required to restrict political expression based on perceived meaning alone.
The ruling underscores longstanding First Amendment protections that shield even controversial or provocative speech from government suppression unless it clearly constitutes a direct and credible threat.
The temporary restraining order will remain in place for two weeks while litigation continues.
The case adds to ongoing national debate over where courts should draw the line between protected political speech and unlawful threats in an increasingly polarized environment.
Continue Scrolling for the Comments
Leave a Comment