Well, we can count on the progressive state of Massachusetts to be the party pooper of America’s 250th Birthday. In the Town of Newbury, about 40 minutes from Boston—often called the Cradle of Liberty—residents on Plum Island have been told that displaying American flags on their property could potentially run afoul of state and federal wildlife protection laws.
One homeowner, Marc Sarkady, who has lived on Plum Island for three decades, placed seven small American flags in the sand on his own property. Soon afterward, he and several neighbors received a letter warning that American flags, Mylar streamers, and other reflective decorations could violate the Massachusetts and federal Endangered Species Acts.
According to the Town, the concern is not the patriotic message itself, but the possibility that such displays are intended to discourage protected shorebirds—particularly piping plovers and least terns—from nesting on private property, reports Pacific Legal.
The notice explains that these items “may be viewed as harassment or disruption of normal feeding, nesting, or migratory behavior,” and warns that violations could “carry significant regulatory and financial penalties.”
It further advises residents that “Non-compliance may result in state or federal enforcement actions and, thus, the town urges residents to comply with applicable state and federal wildlife protection laws.”
Sarkady objected to the warning, arguing that restrictions on what homeowners can display on their own property run counter to the principles of liberty celebrated each Independence Day.
Mark Miller, director of Environment and Natural Resources litigation at Pacific Legal Foundation, criticized the Town’s position, saying it “would have been unthinkable to the Founding Fathers. It should be unthinkable today.”
Representing Sarkady, Pacific Legal Foundation sent a letter to Newbury seeking clarification on whether homeowners could actually face legal consequences for displaying patriotic decorations on their own property. In that letter, Miller notes that no court has held a homeowner liable under either the state or federal Endangered Species Act for placing decorative items on private property and asks the Town to identify any legal authority supporting its interpretation.
The organization argues that property owners living near protected wildlife habitat do not lose either their property rights or their First Amendment rights simply because environmental regulations apply nearby.
The Town later responded, saying its original notice was not intended as a threat of enforcement. Instead, officials stated that the letter was “intended to be informational by reciting the applicable provisions of the law and the Town is not asserting any threat of legal liability—merely reminding property owners that they live in a very special place which comes along with certain responsibilities and considerations.”