Court Cases

Accountability NOW is a group of volunteers who have been holding a permitted, 24/7 anti-Trump vigil on National Park Service (NPS) land in Washington, D.C., for months. After they erected signs saying "Trump raped little girls,” and “Kids, if your parents are MAGA, they love child rapists,” NPS demanded they remove the signs because they are “obscene,” and therefore, not protected by the First Amendment. But the signs are not obscene. Legal obscenity is an extremely narrow exception to the First Amendment’s protection and does not apply to signs like these. For example, the media has extensively covered Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes on TV and online, but those reports do not satisfy the legal test for obscenity, which is designed to capture things like hardcore pornography that have no artistic or other value. This case shows why the test is so strict: If politicians could stop you from accusing them of sexual misconduct by saying that the accusation is obscene, they could avoid accountability. That’s what the First Amendment prevents. We are asking the court to prohibit NPS from revoking its demonstration permit on this trumped-up ground. We hope that this lawsuit will remind government officials to take Americans’ First Amendment rights seriously. After seeking unsuccessfully to persuade the government that it should reverse its position, we filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on May 26. At 5 a.m. the next morning, Park Police officers came to our client’s demonstration and informed them that a flag they were flying, which said “8647,” was a threat to the President and must be removed or they would be violating their permit. That afternoon we filed an application for a temporary restraining order, asking the court to prohibit the government from taking action against the demonstration if it resumed displaying that flag. On May 28 the court heard argument on our motion, and on Monday June 1 it was granted, ordering the government not to take action against the demonstration for flying an “8647” flag. That temporary order can last only 28 days, so on June 10 we filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking an order that will last through the litigation of the case prohibiting the government from retaliating against the demonstration for flying the flag or displaying the posters about Trump’s alleged sex crimes. On June 29, the court issued a final decision in the case, finding that the facts were undisputed and no further proceedings were needed. The court concluded that “both sets of materials represent core protected speech, and, as a result, the NPS may not compel their removal or condition Plaintiff’s continuing entitlement to a demonstration permit on Plaintiff’s refraining from that speech.” Accordingly, the court issued a permanent injunction protecting Accountability NOW’s right to display the rape signs and the 8647 flag.

In March 2026, Dr. Sohayla Horani, a surgical resident went to the D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) to obtain a D.C. driver’s license. What should have been a routine appointment turned into a violation of the fundamental right to religious freedom: In order to receive her driver’s license, DMV staff forced Dr. Horani to pull back her hijab to reveal her hair, in violation of her religious beliefs. In doing so, DMV staff violated a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), and D.C.’s own policy stated on the DMV’s website that hair does not need to be shown in ID photographs. When DMV staff told Dr. Horani she needed to pull back her hijab and show her ears or some of her hair at the hairline for her driver’s license photograph, Dr. Horani resisted. She explained that she is not allowed to show any hair as a matter of religious conviction, and she showed her U.S. passport and Oregon ID photographs where she was not required to show any hair at all as evidence that she had never been asked to do this before for any other government-issued ID. The employee responded that it did not matter, that “these are our rules,” and that they do this every day, including to other women who wear a hijab. The employee’s supervisor confirmed that if Dr. Horani refuses to pull back her hijab and show her hair for the photograph, she would not get an ID. After all of Dr. Horani’s objections were rejected and left with no other choice, she ultimately complied, resulting in a driver’s license that was completely useless to her because it shows her hair and it is strictly against Dr. Horani’s religious beliefs to show her hair to any man who is not her husband or close blood relative. We submitted a pre-suit settlement demand letter to D.C. on Dr. Horani’s behalf. In the letter, we explained that Dr. Horani is considering pursuing a lawsuit under RFRA and that she would successfully state a RFRA claim because she would be able to show that the District substantially burdened her exercise of religion by requiring her to violate her sincerely held religious beliefs in order to obtain an ID. The letter stated that Dr. Horani is willing to refrain from filing a lawsuit if the District agrees to take steps to rectify the situation, including permitting Dr. Horani to retake her driver’s license photograph free of charge, destroying all electronic and paper copies of the photograph showing her hair, and training DMV employees on D.C.’s policy. The same day we sent the letter, D.C. responded favorably, agreeing to each of these conditions. D.C. DMV noted that it “takes this matter seriously and will require additional training on the issuance of credentials without violating an individual’s religious beliefs.”

The government has long infringed on Americans’ fundamental rights and liberties under the guise of national security. We want to know DHS’s plan to safeguard civil liberties, civil rights, and privacy, or whether it even has one.

Deon Jones, a gay man, has been employed by the D.C. Dept. of Corrections for more than two decades, where he has endured pervasive acts of harassment based on his sexual orientation. The lawsuit describes how Sgt. Jones faced constant harassment from co-workers and incarcerated persons alike.

The Arab Student Union’s activities would not be disruptive; they are the same kinds of activities in which other student clubs engage. Their speech has been suppressed because the school does not want their viewpoint to be heard.

The lawsuit, filed as a class action, primarily seeks a court order to prohibit DOC officials from imposing requirements on Jewish people in their custody to provide external verification of their religion as a condition for approving their kosher meal requests.