The Justice Department has moved to dismiss charges against an Army veteran who set an American flag alight near the White House in 2025.
Jay Carey was arrested on August 25 after the incident, which was an act of protest against an executive order issued by President Donald Trump.
The 55-year-old, from Arden, North Carolina, said he served in the Army from 1989-2012, with deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
He ignited the flag in Lafayette Park, an area managed by the National Park Service.
It came on the same day that Trump signed an executive order mandating the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute people for flag burning.
Carey faced two misdemeanour charges, neither of which directly concerned the act of flag burning itself. Instead, he was accused of igniting a fire in an undesignated area and causing damage to property or park resources.
He entered a plea of not guilty in September.
The recent filing did not provide an explanation for the decision to dismiss the case, and the U.S. Attorney’s office has yet to comment.
A spokesperson for the District of Columbia did not immediately respond on Saturday to an email seeking comment.
The Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is a legitimate political expression which is protected by the Constitution. Trump’s order said that burning a flag can be prosecuted if it “is likely to incite imminent lawless action” or amounts to “fighting words.”
“I set out to demonstrate that the First Amendment is sacred and that no administration has the right to supersede our constitutional rights,” Carey said in a statement from the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund.
“I was targeted for federal prosecution because of that. I am glad to stand with all those who are fighting for our fundamental rights and hope that this victory can help the next person who takes a stand.”
It shows people that “the Constitution still matters,” Carey said when reached by telephone on Saturday.
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, one of Carey’s lawyers and fund co-founder, said the prosecution should not have been brought.
“The government’s attempt to criminally punish a protestor based on expressive conduct targeted for prosecution by presidential order posed a grave threat to First Amendment freedoms,” Verheyden-Hilliard said in a statement.
“The government’s about-face is a critical vindication of those rights. This case also lays the groundwork for defending those across the country who are targeted for vindictive prosecution by the Trump Administration in an effort to silence and punish viewpoints it doesn’t like.”
