O'Hara v. Beck

Overview

Sam O'Hara, a D.C. resident who played The Imperial March to protest the National Guard deployment in D.C., sued the Trump administration over his arrest by the MPD.

Issue

Whether playing The Imperial March as political protest is protected speech under the First Amendment, and whether the plaintiff's arrest by MPD violated his constitutional rights.

Rule

The First Amendment protects expressive conduct and political protest. Arrests cannot be pretextual or motivated by suppression of protected speech and must be supported by probable cause. Content-based restrictions on speech receive strict scrutiny; content-neutral regulations receive intermediate scrutiny.

Analysis

O'Hara's selection of The Imperial March to protest the National Guard deployment constitutes political expressive conduct. If the arrest lacked probable cause for an independent, content-neutral offense or was motivated by the political message, it violates the First Amendment.

Beck, the primary defendant has filed a motion to dismiss.

Settlement in Part

“ Plaintiff hereby notifies the Court that he has reached a settlement with Defendants District of Columbia, Campbell, Brown, Reyes-Benigno, and Lopez Martinez. Within three business days of payment of the settlement amount agreed to by these Defendants as set forth fully in the agreement, the Plaintiff will file a notice of dismissal with prejudice as to these Defendants. This settlement does not affect in any way Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Beck, which remain live, subject to the resolution of Beck’s pending motion to dismiss.”

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.286143/gov.uscourts.dcd.286143.27.0_1.pdf

Conclusion

The case is active in federal district court under Judge Timothy J. Kelly. O'Hara has a viable First Amendment retaliation claim if he can demonstrate the arrest was content-based or pretextual rather than justified by an independent, viewpoint-neutral legal violation.