Protester Sues After Arrest for Playing “Star Wars” Theme: Free Speech, Policing, and the Future of Creative Dissent

Sam O’Hara’s lawsuit over his brief detention for playing “The Imperial March” behind National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., is already reshaping a familiar debate: where do protester rights end and public-order prerogatives begin? The complaint argues that handcuffing a nonviolent protester for a satirical, music-based demonstration violated both the First and Fourth Amendments. City officials, meanwhile, face questions about how officers assess risk when the message is pointed but peaceful—and performed in a quintessential public forum, the sidewalk. Reporting and court filings confirm the arrest and the core allegations; the case could now become a touchstone for how authorities handle creative protester expression in the nation’s capital.

What Happened and Why It Matters for a Protester

On September 11, 2025, O’Hara walked behind patrolling Ohio National Guard members and played the “Imperial March” from his phone, filming as he went. A Guardsman called D.C. police. Officers stopped the protester, handcuffed him for roughly 15–20 minutes, and released him without charges. With help from the ACLU of D.C., the protester filed suit on October 23, alleging unlawful detention and violations of free speech and free expression. The complaint names four Metropolitan Police Department officers and the Guardsman, and it seeks damages and declaratory relief.

The incident drew national coverage because it was unmistakably symbolic: a protester used one of pop culture’s most recognizable themes to criticize the optics of a military deployment on city streets. Whether one sees the bit as clever, provocative, or disrespectful, the legal question is narrower. It asks whether the government may briefly restrain a peaceful protester for satire that neither blocks nor threatens, in a place where political expression is historically robust. O’Hara’s lawyers say no; the District and Guard have not yet offered a detailed defense in court.

The First Amendment Frame: Music, Sidewalks, and “Time, Place, and Manner” for a Protester

U.S. sidewalks are classic public forums where speech protections are at their zenith. The Supreme Court has long allowed governments to impose content-neutral “time, place, and manner” limits to keep order, such as reasonable noise controls or narrowly tailored buffer rules, but it has also struck down overbroad restrictions that silence speech beyond what public safety requires. In Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989), the Court upheld a sound-management rule focused on volume, not viewpoint. In McCullen v. Coakley (2014), the Court unanimously invalidated a fixed buffer that burdened substantially more speech than necessary. And in Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the Court protected deeply offensive picketing because it involved matters of public concern on public land. For a protester like O’Hara, these cases form the backbone of the analysis.

Because O’Hara is a protester using music rather than a megaphone to convey a political message, the government must show any restraint was justified by a real, content-neutral need—such as imminent threats, obstruction, or unsafe crowding—and that its response was as light-touch as practicable. That is where facts matter: Was the protester blocking troops, impeding traffic, or creating a noise hazard, or was he simply trailing at a safe distance with a phone speaker? Those factual disputes, documented in filings and news reports, will likely determine whether the detention clears First Amendment scrutiny.

D.C.’s Protest Rules and What Officers Are Told to Do When a Protester Is Involved

District law recognizes a broad right to assemble “on the streets, sidewalks, and other public ways,” subject to reasonable restrictions for safety and access. Guidance from the D.C. Attorney General reiterates protester rights and the city’s obligations to facilitate speech that is peaceful and visible “near the object of their protest,” so demonstrators can be seen and heard. The District’s First Amendment Assemblies Act outlines limits on encirclement and mass-containment and instructs that police responses should be calibrated to actual unlawful conduct, not the mere content of expression. Those local standards frame the protester’s experience and will loom over the city’s defense.

If the court finds that officers briefly detained a protester based mainly on message or discomfort—rather than on a narrow, evidence-based safety concern—District law and First Amendment doctrine both point toward liability. If, however, the record shows specific, imminent risks that could not be addressed by a less intrusive step (for example, a warning or a path adjustment), the city will argue the handcuffing was a permissible, limited intervention to maintain order.

The Role of Satire, Sound, and Symbolism in Protester Speech

Music has always been part of protest. O’Hara’s choice of the “Imperial March” is obvious satire: a sonic label suggesting authoritarian optics for a military patrol through civilian streets. Courts do not treat satire as a special category; it is political speech, and thus highly protected, even when biting. The question is not whether some found the performance disrespectful, but whether the protester’s conduct crossed a neutral, enforceable line. In that sense, the case resembles many D.C. disputes: sophisticated rhetoric meets street-level discretion, and a split-second judgment by an officer becomes the fulcrum of a constitutional claim.

How This Case Could Recalibrate Policing of a Creative Protester

If O’Hara prevails, departments may redouble training on low-intensity responses to expressive conduct—especially when a protester uses satire or art instead of high-decibel amplification. Expect a renewed emphasis on warnings, escorts, and path management over physical restraint, along with documentation standards that spell out the specific safety basis for any detention. If the city wins, agencies may feel affirmed in making brief, on-the-spot detentions where a protester shadows armed personnel, even absent charges. Either outcome will prompt policy memos, because the core fact pattern—an individual protester trailing public-safety forces with a camera and a soundtrack—is increasingly common in the smartphone era.

The National Guard’s Role and the Protester Encounter

The presence of Guard troops in the capital is itself controversial, and it frames the encounter. News accounts and filings indicate more than two thousand Guard members were deployed under federal authority during a period of heightened “law-and-order” posture. O’Hara’s complaint alleges a Guardsman initiated the stop, which could extend liability questions beyond MPD. The Guard and the District have not publicly detailed their internal guidance on interactions with a protester during patrols, but the lawsuit may pry those protocols into view, clarifying who can direct civilian police to act and under what standards.

The Broader Precedent: Protester Rights and Public Tolerance

At bottom, the case tests public tolerance for pointed dissent by a protester. In Snyder, the Court taught that even repugnant speech on matters of public concern receives special protection when voiced in a public forum. In McCullen, it reminded governments to achieve safety with narrow, evidence-based tools. In Ward, it confirmed that neutral rules about volume or equipment can stand. Where does a lone protester with a phone speaker fall on that spectrum? The line will likely be drawn by concrete, verifiable facts about proximity, obstruction, volume, and behavior—facts a judge or jury will apply against well-worn constitutional guardrails.

Practical Takeaways for a Protester and for Officials

For any protester in D.C., the Attorney General’s “Know Your Rights” advisory is a useful starting point: the law protects peaceful assemblies on sidewalks and in parks; visibility near the protest target is a feature, not a flaw; and reasonable, neutral limits may apply for safety. For officials, the Assemblies Act is a reminder that sweeping tactics, like encirclement without probable cause, are off-limits, and that interventions should be documented and tailored. Training that anticipates satirical performances—music, costumes, sound effects—can prevent misreads that convert a pointed message by a protester into a costly lawsuit.

Bottom Line

Sam O’Hara’s case is not about liking or disliking the “Imperial March.” It is about whether a peaceful protester can use satire on a public sidewalk without handcuffs, and what governments must show before restraining that speech. The law gives authorities tools to keep order; it also guards political expression with unusual vigor. This lawsuit will help define where those principles meet when dissent is performed, not shouted—and how police should respond the next time a melody becomes a protester’s message.

Connect with the Author

Curious about the inspiration behind The Unmaking of America or want to follow the latest news and insights from J.T. Mercer? Dive deeper and stay connected through the links below—then explore Vera2 for sharp, timely reporting.

About the Author

Discover more about J.T. Mercer’s background, writing journey, and the real-world events that inspired The Unmaking of America. Learn what drives the storytelling and how this trilogy came to life.
[Learn more about J.T. Mercer]

NRP Dispatch Blog

Stay informed with the NRP Dispatch blog, where you’ll find author updates, behind-the-scenes commentary, and thought-provoking articles on current events, democracy, and the writing process.
[Read the NRP Dispatch]

Vera2 — News & Analysis

Looking for the latest reporting, explainers, and investigative pieces? Visit Vera2, North River Publications’ news and analysis hub. Vera2 covers politics, civil society, global affairs, courts, technology, and more—curated with context and built for readers who want clarity over noise.
[Explore Vera2]

Whether you’re interested in the creative process, want to engage with fellow readers, or simply want the latest updates, these resources are the best way to stay in touch with the world of The Unmaking of America—and with the broader news ecosystem at Vera2.

Free Chapter

Begin reading The Unmaking of America today and experience a story that asks: What remains when the rules are gone, and who will stand up when it matters most? Join the Fall of America mailing list below to receive the first chapter of The Unmaking of America for free and stay connected for updates, bonus material, and author news.

Read the first chapter free

Post Views: 2

Vera2, Civil Rights and Society

Protester Sues After Arrest for Playing “Star Wars” Theme in D.C.: Free Speech on Trial