Court Blocks Trump From Banning 8647 Signs And Flags In National Parks

A judge has ruled that signs accusing Trump of child abuse and containing the message 8647 are protected free speech and can't be removed from the nation's national parks.

Even though the Trump DOJ is attempting to prosecute James Comey for a social media post where 8647 was spelled out in seashells on a beach, a federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from removing 8647 signs from national parks because they are protected free speech.

The Trump administration has tried to revoke permits from protesters on national park lands who had signs or flags bearing the message 8647.

The Daily is democracy first journalism for the people. Please support our work by becoming a subscriber.

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled that those signs and flags are protected free speech under the First Amendment:

Plaintiff now moves for a preliminary injunction seeking to “prevent Defendants from revoking Plaintiff’s demonstration permit or destroying its property based on its display” of the two signs accusing President Trump of rape and its materials containing the “8647” legend.

Given the narrow focus of Plaintiff’s claims and the absence of any evident factual dispute, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why it should not treat Plaintiff’s pending motion as a motion for summary judgment and resolve the case on the merits. Min. Order (June 18, 2026); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2). In response, the “[p]arties agree[d] that there are no materially disputed facts relevant to Plaintiff’s claim,” and they did not “object[] to” consolidation of the motion for a preliminary injunction with final resolution of the case on the merits. Dkt. 35 at 1

. The Court will, accordingly, treat Plaintiff’s pending motion as a motion for summary judgment. The only question before the Court, then, is whether in light of the undisputed factual record, the two signs accusing President Trump of rape and the “8647” materials fall outside the scope of First Amendment protection, as the NPS maintains, or whether they constitute protected political speech, as Plaintiff asserts. If the materials constitute fully protected speech, all agree that the NPS lacks authority to compel their removal or to revoke Plaintiff’s permit for displaying them. As explained below, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.

It might seem like common sense, but this is another moment when Trump’s overreach has been struck down by the courts.