Federal Judge Says Anti-Trump Group’s “86-47” Flag Is Protected Political Speech

A federal judge has placed a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the National Park Service (NPS), restricting the agency from barring an organization opposed to President Donald Trump from displaying an “86-47” flag and other signage during their protests.

Accountability NOW USA, a group that advocates for Trump to be impeached and removed from the White House, has been protesting the president for 24 hours per day, seven days per week, since December. Earlier this year, they started using a flag that had the numbers “86-47” on it.

“86” is commonly understood to mean “get rid of” or “throw out,” especially in the restaurant world. Some interpret the number to mean “kill,” though the organization has said that they are not using the number in that manner. “47” refers to Trump, as he is the 47th president of the United States.

In addition to the flag, Accountability NOW demonstrators have held up signs alleging that Trump is a sexual abuser of children, citing unverified documents released from the Epstein files.

NPS and the Secret Service demanded the signs come down in April, calling them “unprotected obscenity,” and threatening to “impose and enforce permit conditions” to bar Accountability NOW from protesting at the George Meade statue in Washington, D.C., which is on NPS-managed land.

The organization filed a request for a TRO on those demands shortly after, while their lawsuit demanding their signage not be restricted continues.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss granted the TRO request, stating that NPS could not restrict the group’s signage and flag use, as it would restrict their free speech rights protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Moss, recognizing the multiple meanings behind “86,” noted that the government failed to prove the organizers were threatening the president’s life, and that NPS claims did not meet the standard allowing for restrictions of speech under a doctrine called “true threat.”

“The uncontroverted evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff [Accountability NOW] lacked any subjective intent to threaten or to harm the President and that it merely sought to use the flag to communicate that ‘Trump shouldn’t be in office,’” Moss recognized, adding:

The question whether ‘8647’ constitutes a true threat cannot be resolved in the abstract, without consideration of context, and, here, the relevant context makes clear that no reasonable observer could have viewed Plaintiff’s display of the flag as a threat to the President’s life or physical safety.

The signs and the flag “might outrage or offend some, but they do not, by any measure, cross the line from protected political speech to unprotected obscenity,” Moss said.

“The principal difficulty with the government’s argument is that the overall and overwhelming message the Plaintiff has conveyed, and hopes to continue to convey, is that President Trump should be removed from office by constitutional means,” Moss wrote in his opinion granting the TRO, concluding that the “86-47” flag “is protected speech.

Accountability NOW members celebrated the ruling.

“We at Accountability NOW are pleased that the Court has upheld our First Amendment right to display signs addressing the President’s alleged sex crimes, as well as our peaceful 8647 flags and artwork, at our 24/7 demonstration,” said organizer Anita Carey. “We will continue to exercise our constitutional right to lawfully and peacefully call for the President’s impeachment, conviction, and removal from office.”

“As the nation celebrates 250 years of independence, this ruling underscores the enduring importance of public dissent in our democracy,” Carey added.

“Again and again, the National Park Service has tried to shut down this speech simply because it is critical of Donald Trump,” said Aditi Shah, staff attorney at ACLU-D.C., who represents the organization in the case. “The definitions of ‘obscenity’ and ‘true threat’ are narrow and for good reason; the government should not have wide latitude to shut down critical speech using ‘obscenity’ and purported ‘threats’ as covers.”

The case has notable parallels to charges the Department of Justice (DOJ) brought against former FBI director James Comey earlier this year.

In 2025, Comey shared an image of seashells on social media arranged to make up the same numbers — “86 47” — before deleting the post when users responded by explaining the number “86” can sometimes mean “kill.”

Prosecutors in that case will likely have to overcome the same “true threat” standard for Comey that NPS failed to demonstrate with Accountability NOW.

“Under First Amendment jurisprudence, a threat may be prosecuted only if it amounts to a ‘true’ threat, which the Supreme Court has defined as a serious expression conveying that a speaker means to commit an act of unlawful violence,” MS NOW legal analyst Barbara McQuade said at the time charges were brought against Comey.