Federal judge rules '8647' flag display protected speech

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled Monday that protesters displaying a flag bearing the message "8647" near the U.S. Capitol were engaging in protected political speech and not making a threat against President Donald Trump. The ruling sided with Accountability Now USA, an advocacy group that has maintained a round-the-clock protest near the Capitol calling for Trump's impeachment.

The decision came after members of the group said they were repeatedly pressured by law enforcement officials over several months to remove the flag and other signs.

Background of the dispute Accountability Now USA obtained a National Park Service permit in April to demonstrate near the George Gordon Meade Memorial. According to court filings, the group plans to renew the permit when it expires in August. Members described several contentious encounters with officials from the Secret Service and the National Park Service.

They said authorities repeatedly demanded the removal of signs and suggested participants could face arrest if they refused. One dispute centered on signs referencing Trump's association with Jeffrey Epstein. According to court filings, a National Park Service official informed the group that a sign stating Trump supporters "love child rapists" constituted unprotected obscenity and had to be removed.

Government position and related cases The Justice Department argued that the government has a "strong public and governmental interest" in investigating potential threats against the president, even when those threats ultimately prove unfounded. According to court filings, the Secret Service has investigated more than 1,300 instances of individuals using the phrase "86-47," most of them in online posts.

" The same numbers have also appeared painted on Washington's Reflecting Pool in recent weeks. In his opinion, the judge wrote that "86" originated in "1930s soda-counter slang" and historically meant to "throw out," "refuse service," or "get rid of" someone or something.

He noted that dictionary references have generally not adopted a violent definition because of its relatively recent and infrequent usage.