A protest group on the National Mall has been advised that some of what it’s saying goes too far, in front of monuments erected to honor the idea that Americans can express their opinions about their government. The federal lawsuit filed on April 23rd claims that the signs in question allude to alleged sexual misbehavior involving President Trump, which was sparked by an NPR article that claimed the Justice Department had concealed some information pertaining to Epstein.
In response, the National Park Service threatened to revoke the group’s permit to demonstrate, labeling the signs as “unprotected obscenity.” On the same day, the ACLU of Washington, DC filed a lawsuit, and the ensuing dispute touches on a pretty basic question regarding the true purpose of public space in the capital.
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ACLU of Washington DC — representing Accountability NOW USA |
| Defendants | Interior Secretary Doug Burgum; Kevin Griess, Superintendent of National Mall and Memorial Parks |
| Filed | April 23, 2026 — U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Core Allegation | National Park Service threatened to revoke a demonstration permit over signs critical of President Trump — alleged First Amendment violation |
| Government’s Claim | Signs constitute “unprotected obscenity” — Interior Department said the language is “not protected under the First Amendment” |
| Legal Standard Applied | Miller Test — three-part Supreme Court standard for determining legal obscenity |
| ACLU’s Position | “No colorable argument” that the signs meet the obscenity standard; political criticism of a president is not legally obscene |
| Group’s Response | Stopped displaying signs voluntarily to avoid enforcement — intends to resume once legal protection is confirmed |
| Broader Context | Related to pattern of permit disputes and speech restrictions near the White House and National Mall in 2025–2026 |
| Further Reading | Case background and filings covered at Politico Civil Liberties |
Accountability NOW USA, the organization at the heart of the dispute, has been holding a continuous protest on government property in Washington. The Park Service sent an email from Kevin Griess, superintendent of the National Mall and Memorial Parks, stating that the signs had been “evaluated under all appropriate standards and tests” and found to be outside of First Amendment protection when they changed to mention Trump and the Epstein-related records.
In a news release, the Interior Department also stated that the language is “not protected under the First Amendment”—citing, of all things, the country’s impending 250th anniversary and the presence of tourists of all ages. Instead than strengthening a government’s legal position, this framing—which combines constitutional law with tourism optics—tends to make it more difficult.
The Miller test, a three-part Supreme Court framework for judging whether communication qualifies as legally obscene content, is the legal criterion being referenced by both sides. Content must appeal to prurient desire, portray sexual behavior in a blatantly objectionable manner, and have no significant educational, artistic, political, or scientific value in order to achieve that barrier.
When the speech in question includes political criticism of a sitting president, it is challenging to meet the third requirement on its own. More succinctly, Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at the ACLU of DC, stated that he believes the government is “manufacturing a legally frivolous ground” for taking action against the protesters. He might be correct. Regardless of how unpleasant political speech may be to certain onlookers, courts have typically been hesitant to apply the extremely high obscenity test.
Beyond its immediate details, the case is worth following because of the pattern it fits within. In 2025, Trump demanded that a peace vigil that had been held close to the White House for decades be dismantled. After playing the Imperial March behind National Guard soldiers on patrol, a guy was arrested.
Dave Mytych, the main organizer of Accountability NOW USA, has established a connection between these episodes and the circumstances leading up to the American Revolution. This may be an overreach, but it is supported by some rhetorical reasoning.
Mytych added that none of the confrontations over the signs escalated into physical altercations, which tends to undermine the public order argument, despite some verbal opposition from onlookers.
The group voluntarily halted putting up the disputed signs and waited for legal protection before continuing. The ACLU’s complaint claims that the permission threat was intended to create a chilling effect, which is what that decision—self-censoring to prevent enforcement rather than fighting in real time—is.
The district court’s decision is yet unknown, especially in light of the February dismissal of a prior Mytych First Amendment complaint against the Park Service. The ACLU’s wording does not accurately reflect the state of the law in this area.
However, the courts have frequently ruled against the government on the fundamental question of whether the government can classify political criticism as obscenity when it deems it inconvenient.
