The Justice Department on Friday moved to dismiss charges against a veteran who set an American flag on fire across the street from the White House following an executive order seeking to crack down on flag burning.

U.S. Park Police arrested Jan 'Jay' Carey in August after he set the flag ablaze in Lafayette Square on the same day President Donald Trump signed the order. He pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanors — igniting a fire in an undesignated area and lighting a fire causing damage to property or park resources — brought by the office of Jeanine Pirro, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Carey was not charged with flag burning itself.

What the Right Is Saying

Supporters of the prosecution argued that even if flag burning itself is protected speech, the manner in which Carey exercised that right violated laws against starting fires in federal parks. Some conservatives emphasized that the charges were not for flag burning but for related offenses.

The case was brought by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, a Trump ally who has pursued several high-profile prosecutions during her tenure. The decision to drop the case comes amid a series of legal setbacks for Pirro's office, including a jury acquitting a defendant charged with throwing a sandwich at a federal agent and a federal grand jury rejecting an effort to indict Democratic lawmakers over a social media video.

Some Republican commentators have defended the executive order as an attempt to protect national symbols, arguing that while flag burning may be constitutionally protected, the government has an interest in discouraging actions that could incite violence or disorder.

What the Left Is Saying

Civil liberties advocates praised the dismissal as a victory for First Amendment rights. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a lawyer for Carey and co-founder of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, called Friday's filing 'long overdue.'

'This is a very significant victory for not only the First Amendment rights of Mr. Carey but the rights of all Americans to stand up and speak out on issues that they care about without being targeted for punishment by the Justice Department,' Verheyden-Hilliard told NBC News.

Carey had argued that his prosecution was retaliation for his protest of Trump's executive order. In a statement released after his arraignment, Carey said: 'This was a direct protest about an illegal order that President Trump tried to put in place. I did not do this just for myself, but for everyone who believes in the Constitution and the protections for all that it provides.'

Progressive legal scholars noted that Trump's executive order does not make flag burning a crime, but rather argues it is 'likely to incite imminent lawless action.' Critics have called the order an attempt to circumvent decades of First Amendment jurisprudence.

What the Numbers Show

In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Texas v. Johnson that burning the American flag is protected speech under the First Amendment. The landmark decision established that flag burning constitutes expressive conduct covered by constitutional protections.

Carey faced two misdemeanor charges: igniting a fire in an undesignated area and lighting a fire causing damage to property or park resources. He was not charged with the crime of flag burning itself, which remains protected speech under Supreme Court precedent.

In January, U.S. District Chief Judge James Boasberg ruled that Carey was entitled to further inquiry into whether he was being prosecuted 'to punish him for his allegedly illegal actions or for his constitutionally protected speech.' The judge's ruling effectively forced the DOJ to either proceed with discovery into the prosecution's motivations or dismiss the case.

The dismissal comes ahead of a Monday deadline in which prosecutors were required to provide information about their internal decision-making process related to the executive order, according to Carey','s lawyer.

The case marks another setback for Pirro's office. In November, a jury acquitted a defendant charged with hurling a submarine sandwich at a federal agent after a grand jury refused to indict him on the felony charge sought by prosecutors. Last month, a grand jury rejected an effort to indict Democratic lawmakers over a video posted to social media. On Friday, Judge Boasberg also blocked subpoenas from Pirro's office targeting Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

The Bottom Line

The dismissal ends a prosecution that drew scrutiny over whether it was motivated by the defendant's protest of Trump's executive order rather than legitimate criminal charges. The DOJ's decision to drop the case before facing discovery into its internal deliberations suggests the department sought to avoid revealing whether political considerations influenced the prosecution.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between First Amendment protections and executive branch efforts to restrict symbolic speech. While Trump's executive order does not create a new crime, it directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to 'vigorously prosecute' flag burners and pursue litigation to 'clarify the scope of the First Amendment exceptions.'

Legal observers will watch whether the DOJ pursues similar prosecutions in the future, and how courts respond to arguments that flag burning constitutes incitement rather than protected speech. For now, Carey's case serves as a reminder that despite the Supreme Court's 1989 ruling, the legal status of flag burning remains a politically charged issue.