The ACLU Lawsuit Against the National Park Service Is the First Amendment Fight Washington Didn’t Want

A small group of demonstrators have been holding a standing protest against the Trump administration on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., within sight of the Capitol dome and the monuments lining the reflecting pool. They possess a permit. They’ve got signs. Additionally, on April 14, the National Mall and Memorial Parks superintendent sent them an email stating that two of their signs were “unprotected obscenity” and would have to be taken down.

The National Park Service was sued federally by the ACLU of DC nine days later.

Earlier this year, Accountability NOW USA updated its display in response to a February NPR report that suggested the Justice Department had excluded Trump-related documents from the Jeffrey Epstein files’ public release. The new signs made reference to those purported ties; in particular, they used straightforward language to accuse the president of sexual misconduct. In the letter dated April 14, National Mall and Memorial Parks superintendent Kevin Griess stated that the content had been “evaluated under all appropriate standards and tests” and found to be unprotected by the First Amendment. He requested that it be taken down, cautioning that the Parks Service might take additional action to “ensure compliance.” Instead of running the risk of losing their permission to demonstrate at all, the group decided to cease displaying the signs because they perceived this as an immediate threat to their permit.

According to the ACLU, Griess’s decision has virtually no legal basis. The Miller test, a three-part standard that requires that the material appeal to prurient interest, depict sexual conduct in a way that is obviously offensive, and lack serious educational, artistic, political, or scientific value, is used by courts to define obscenity. The First Amendment does not protect obscenity. Each of the three requirements must be fulfilled. This standard is not met by political criticism of a president just because it makes reference to alleged sexual misconduct or uses harsh language. The government’s obscenity claim, according to ACLU of DC senior counsel Arthur Spitzer, is “so obviously manufacturing a legally frivolous ground for trying to take action against these demonstrators.” In a statement, the organization’s staff lawyer Laura Follansbee put it more succinctly: “Just because a Trump appointee finds a message distasteful does not make it illegal.”

The spokesperson for the Interior Department did not address the legal argument in their response. “As a reminder, we are approaching America’s 250th and we have visitors of all ages coming to our nation’s capital,” a spokesperson said. “This language is not protected under the First Amendment.” It is important to note that the Miller test does not contain a “visitors of all ages” clause. This framing, which frames an age-appropriateness issue as a constitutional determination, is precisely the kind of claim the ACLU is contesting in court.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Griess are named as defendants in the lawsuit, which requests that the court rule that the signs are constitutionally protected, forbid the revocation of permits due to their display, and permit the group to continue displaying them. Additionally, the complaint situates the incident within a larger pattern that it characterizes as Washington’s systematic repression of political protest. It mentions the removal of a satirical sculpture of Trump and Jeffrey Epstein holding hands from the National Mall earlier this year, the detention of a man who performed the “Imperial March” behind National Guard troops, and the dismantling of a decades-long peace vigil near the White House in September 2025.

It’s difficult to ignore the fact that all of these incidents involve government-issued permits and government-owned property, indicating that the administration controls the venue and, presumably, also determines what forms of expression are permitted there. That is a noteworthy assertion. That arrangement was one of the reasons the First Amendment was drafted. The federal court’s decision and whether or not it finds the government’s obscenity determination to be even remotely credible will reveal the current state of the legal boundaries of executive authority over public expression.

The protest group has stated that as soon as it is granted legal protection, it plans to put up the signs once more. No revocation of the permit has occurred. Both parties are awaiting the outcome of the case, which is currently pending in federal court.