Federal Judge Halts National Park Service Interference with “8647” Flag Display
A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order against the National Park Service (NPS), preventing the agency from interfering with a group displaying an “8647” flag in Washington, D.C. The ruling, handed down by U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, stems from a legal challenge brought by Accountability Now USA, an organisation critical of President Donald Trump.
The judge’s decision hinges on the interpretation of the number “8647” and its historical context. Judge Moss noted that the common restaurant slang term “eighty-six,” which dates back nearly a century, signifies “to throw out” or “to get rid of.” This colloquial meaning is central to the group’s defence of their flag’s message.
Accountability Now USA, an anti-Trump group, has been protesting the president for months at a location in front of the federal courthouse on Constitution Avenue. They contend that their flag’s message is not a threat of violence but rather a call for the lawful removal of President Trump from office through impeachment.
Judge Moss agreed with the group’s assertion, stating that the banner could not plausibly be interpreted as a threat of violence against President Trump. He acknowledged that the group’s objective is to see Trump lawfully removed from office via impeachment proceedings. The judge elaborated that “86” is not an unambiguous call to political violence, and certainly not the kind of “imminent” violence that would typically justify restrictions on free speech.
In his written statement, Judge Moss expressed his concern about the rise of political violence, acknowledging it as a grave threat to both its targets and the nation. However, he stressed that the magnitude of this problem does not alter the meaning of the plaintiff’s speech. He concluded that, by any reasonable measure, the speech merely advocated for the President’s impeachment and removal from office, which translates to “to throw [him] out.”
Anita Carey, an organiser with Accountability Now USA, voiced her satisfaction with the court’s decision. “We are pleased that the court saw through the government’s baseless accusations about our 8647 flag,” she stated. Carey reiterated the group’s commitment to lawfully, peacefully, and constitutionally impeaching and removing the President. She announced that they would resume flying their “8647” flag with pride and encouraged others who share their views to do the same. This statement was made according to the ACLU of the District of Columbia.
The Comey Case and the “8647” Symbol
Interestingly, Judge Moss’s ruling did not directly address the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) case against former FBI Director James Comey. Comey had previously posted a photograph on social media depicting shells arranged to form an “8647” message. Although Comey later deleted the post and offered an apology, he was indicted in late April. The indictment alleged that any reasonable person would have interpreted the “8647” message as “a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.”
This development occurred amidst a backdrop of President Trump’s public criticisms of Comey, who had previously referred to him as a “Dirty Cop.”
The connection between the two cases is highlighted by Politico, which noted that Judge Moss’s determination raises questions about the origins of the charges brought against Comey. Comey himself has consistently denied that his “8647” post was intended to incite violence. The contrasting interpretations of the same numerical symbol in different contexts underscore the complexities of free speech and its potential for misinterpretation, particularly in the charged political climate.
Broader Context: Free Speech and National Parks
This legal battle over the “8647” flag also emerges within a broader context of concerns regarding the Trump administration’s approach to free speech and its impact on public spaces, including national parks. Reports and analyses have surfaced suggesting that the administration has engaged in actions perceived by critics as “partisan censorship” within the National Park Service.
These criticisms often point to instances where policies or directives have been altered, allegedly to align with political agendas. For example, there have been reports of rules being changed to potentially void annual passes for visitors who cover up images of President Trump. Such actions have led to accusations that the administration is prioritising political messaging over the non-partisan stewardship of national treasures and the principles of free expression for all Americans.
Critics argue that these measures not only stifle dissent but also put the integrity and accessibility of national parks at risk, potentially placing them on an “unsustainable and dangerous path.” The broader implication is that such administrative actions can have far-reaching consequences, affecting not just individual freedoms but also the public’s trust and engagement with institutions like the National Park Service. The legal precedent set by Judge Moss’s temporary restraining order in the “8647” flag case could have ripple effects on how such symbolic expressions are treated in public spaces moving forward.
