‘Star Wars’ ‘Imperial March’ plays behind National Guard troops in Washington, D.C.
A man was seen chasing National Guard troops in Washington while playing the Star Wars Imperial March song. The video, originally uploaded by TikTok user @everybodyacriticshow, shows a man walking his dog in a park while playing music on his cell phone behind a security guard. Credit: Everyone a Critic/@everybodyacriticshow via Storyful
The American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington, D.C., chapter sued the National Park Service on April 23, alleging that the agency violated the First Amendment by threatening to revoke a permit to protest a sign critical of President Donald Trump.
The ACLU represents Accountability NOW USA, which is described in the federal lawsuit as an “unincorporated organization seeking accountability for the Trump administration’s efforts to subvert the U.S. Constitution.”
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, names Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and National Mall and Memorial Park Director Kevin Gries as defendants.
Accountability NOW USA continues its ongoing demonstrations against the Trump administration on public land in Washington, DC. In response to NPR’s February report that the Justice Department had blocked Epstein from turning over certain records related to Trump and sexual misconduct, the group began posting signs mentioning the alleged conduct, according to the complaint.
The park service “threatened to immediately revoke Plaintiff’s demonstration permit” based on the sign, according to the complaint.
USA TODAY has reached out to the National Park Service and the White House for comment.
Legal obscenity requires clearing high hurdles
Dave Mitic, one of the main organizers of the demonstration, gave mixed reactions to the sign in an interview with USA TODAY. Although there was some verbal opposition, interactions with passersby over the sign did not turn violent, he said.
“We understand that these words can be interpreted as offensive, but that does not outweigh our right to display them,” he said.
According to the complaint, the group received an email from Gries on April 14 with a statement stating that some of the signs constituted “unprotected obscenity” that was “therefore prohibited and in violation of the law.”
In response to an email asking how he reached that conclusion, Gries said he requested the material be removed because it had been “evaluated under all appropriate standards and tests” and was deemed outside of First Amendment protections, the complaint said.
The First Amendment does not protect obscenity, but it is a narrow legal category that requires speech restrictions to meet a high bar to be constitutional.
Courts use the “mirror test” to determine whether content meets that definition by assessing whether the content “appeals to sexual interests,” depicts or describes sexual conduct in a “manifestly offensive manner,” and lacks educational value.
The ACLU’s complaint rejected the idea that Accountability NOW USA signs met that standard.
“There can be no colorable argument that they are legally obscene,” the paper said. “Political criticism of the president is not obscene simply because it references allegations of sexual misconduct.”
Organizer compares alleged DC crackdown to revolutionary era
Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel for the ACLU of D.C., said in an interview with USA TODAY that the federal government is “clearly creating a legally baseless basis to take action against protesters.”
Spitzer said the sign in question is not Accountability NOW USA’s only sign and said, “This is not the only problem.”
Both Mr. Spitzer and Mr. Mitich placed the case within what they described as a broader trend of crackdowns on political speech in Washington, D.C.
For example, President Trump called for an end to decades of peaceful rallies near the White House in September after a Real America’s Voice correspondent told him that anti-nuclear weapons protests were becoming “sometimes anti-American, many times anti-Trump.” A few days later, a man was arrested after playing the Star Wars theme song “Imperial March” behind National Guard troops patrolling the city.
Mitic called the National Park Service’s actions a “clear” example of a pattern that continues today, comparing recent developments to the oppressive conditions of settlers that led to the American Revolution.
The National Park Service is “trying to take us back to a time almost 250 years ago when tyranny ruled,” he said.
The White House said President Trump is an ardent defender of the First Amendment and has characterized certain controversial actions as efforts to maintain public safety and order.
For example, in response to President Trump’s comments that he had “taken away free speech” in connection with October’s flag burning, the White House said that Trump “will always uphold the First Amendment, while at the same time implementing common sense, tough-on-crime policies to prevent violence and disorder.”
Accountability NOW USA’s permit had not been revoked, but the group chose not to continue posting signs “to thwart NPS enforcement action,” according to the complaint.
The complaint states that the National Park Service’s actions “create an imminent threat to Plaintiffs’ ability to engage in their chosen lawful expressive activities on federal lands in the nation’s capital.”
“We intend to make these signals again as soon as we receive legal protection from these consequences,” the group added.
The complaint asks the court to declare that the signs in question are not legally obscene, that their display is protected by the First Amendment, and that the attorney’s office will not revoke performance permits based on the sign’s display.
According to court records, Mr. Mitic filed a similar federal complaint against the National Park Service, based in part on First Amendment grounds, over being told to relocate a demonstration in Washington, D.C., in late 2025 to make way for a construction project.
The judge rejected some of Mitic’s arguments, rejecting his request for a preliminary injunction in February when he filed a First Amendment challenge, saying it was “unlikely to succeed on the merits.”
Breanna Frank is USA TODAY’s First Amendment reporter. Please contact bjfrank@usatoday.com..
USA TODAY’s coverage of First Amendment issues is funded by the Freedom Forum in collaboration with our journalism funding partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
