Judge Says “86 47” Protest Flag Is Not a True Threat Against Trump

A federal judge has ruled that an anti-Trump protest group can continue displaying an “86 47” flag near the National Mall, rejecting the government’s argument that the message should be treated as a threat against President Donald Trump.

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss issued a temporary restraining order Monday in favor of Accountability Now USA, a group holding a 24-hour protest in Washington, D.C. The order blocks the National Park Service from revoking the group’s permit or otherwise acting against it over the flag while the case moves forward.

What happened

The dispute grew out of a permitted demonstration on Constitution Avenue. Accountability Now USA says the protest calls for Trump’s removal from office through impeachment. After volunteers began displaying a flag reading “86 47,” federal officials argued the phrase could be interpreted as a potential call for violence against the president, the 47th president.

Secret Service officials investigated the display, and the National Park Service moved to restrict it. The group sued, arguing the flag was political speech protected by the First Amendment.

What the court said

Moss found that the government had not produced evidence showing the flag actually threatened Trump’s life or safety. ABC News quoted the judge writing that, in context, no reasonable observer would view the message as conveying a threat of violence.

The opinion also focused on the ambiguity of “86.” The term is commonly used to mean throw out, get rid of, remove or refuse service. Some people use it more violently, but the judge said that was not enough, by itself, to turn this flag into unprotected speech.

Image: E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse, Washington, D.C. - AgnosticPreachersKid / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0.

What is confirmed and not confirmed

Confirmed: Moss granted temporary relief; the group can keep displaying the flag for now; the court treated the message as core political speech on the current record; and the order lasts 14 days unless extended or replaced.

Not confirmed: the ruling does not decide every issue in the lawsuit, does not control the separate criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey, and does not say every possible use of “86 47” would always be protected.

Why it matters

The decision lands directly beside the Justice Department’s prosecution of Comey over a social media image showing “86 47” in seashells. That case argues the phrase crossed into a threat. Moss did not rule on Comey’s case, but his reasoning makes the government’s broader theory harder to treat as obvious.

The key legal line is the “true threat” doctrine. Political speech can be angry, crude or ambiguous and still protected. To punish it as a threat, the government needs more than discomfort with the phrase; it needs context and evidence that the words were meant or reasonably understood as a serious expression of violent intent.

What to watch next

Watch whether the government appeals or seeks a narrower order, whether the National Park Service changes its permit position, and whether Comey’s lawyers cite the ruling in the criminal case over the same phrase.

NoDechev rating: confirmed ruling, limited scope. The judge rejected the threat theory for this flag display on this record; the order is temporary and does not end the broader legal fight.