Washington– The Justice Department moved to dismiss charges against an Army veteran who set fire to an American flag near the White House last year to protest President Donald Trump’s policies. Executive order On burning the flag.
Jay Curry, 55, of Arden, North Carolina, who said he served in the Army from 1989 to 2012 and was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, was arrested Aug. 25 after setting fire to the flag in Lafayette Parkwhich is supervised by the National Park Service. Earlier that day, Trump signed an executive order requiring the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute people for burning the American flag.
Curry was charged with two misdemeanors not focused on flag burning: starting a fire in an undesignated area and setting a fire causing damage to property or park resources. he He pleaded not guilty In September. Friday’s filing did not explain the decision to move to dismiss, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia did not immediately respond Saturday to an email seeking comment.
The Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is legitimate political expression protected by the Constitution. Trump’s order affirmed that flag burning can be prosecuted if it “is likely to incite imminent lawless action” or amounts to “fighting words.”
“I set out to prove that the First Amendment is sacred and that no administration has the right to replace our constitutional rights,” Curry said in a statement issued by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund. “I have been targeted for federal prosecution because of this. I am pleased to stand with all those fighting for our basic rights and hope this victory helps the next person who takes a stand.”
Curry said when reached by phone on Saturday that he was showing people that “the Constitution still matters.”
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, one of Carey’s lawyers and co-founder of the fund, said the lawsuit should not have been filed.
“The government’s attempt to criminally punish a protester based on expressive conduct intended for prosecution by presidential order constitutes a grave threat to our First Amendment freedoms,” Verheyden-Hilliard said in a statement. “The government’s U-turn is a critical defense of those rights. This case also lays the groundwork for defending people across the country who are being targeted for retaliatory prosecution by the Trump administration, in an effort to silence and punish viewpoints it does not like.”