By Marilyn Odendahl
The Indiana Citizen
May 19, 2026
The ACLU of Indiana has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent an investigator for Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita’s office from taking “any adverse action” against a Monroe County man who posted “86” on the social-media pages of several state elected officials.
On May 7, the American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of Monroe County resident Lee Lawmaster, filed a lawsuit in Southern Indiana District Court against Kurt Spivey, director of investigations for the attorney general. The lawsuit claims Lawmaster’s First Amendment right to free speech was violated when Spivey warned the plaintiff that he could be indicted for the posts that appeared on the officials’ Facebook pages.
Lawmaster made the posts after former FBI director James Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury in April for posting a picture on Instagram of seashells arranged in the configuration of “86 47.” Trump administration officials said “86” was a threat of violence and “47” was a reference to President Donald Trump, who is the 47th person to serve as president of the United States.
In its lawsuit, the ACLU maintained “86” is not a menacing term, but rather slang for “throw out,” “get rid of” or “refuse service to.” Lawmaster, according to the ACLU, was exercising his First Amendment rights by urging some elected officials, including Rokita, Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith and U.S. Sen. Jim Banks, R-Indiana, “be thrown out and gotten rid of,” because he did not like their policies and actions.
After those social-media posts, Spivey went to Lawmaster’s home and told him to “tone down the political rhetoric a little bit” or an indictment would follow, according to the ACLU lawsuit. As a result, the ACLU said, Lawmaster stopped commenting on officials’ social-media sites altogether for fear of criminal prosecution.
“Mr. Lawmaster did nothing more than express his view that elected officials should be removed from office,” Falk said in a press release. “Sending a state investigator to his home to warn him that he could be indicted for that speech is exactly the kind of government intimidation the First Amendment forbids.”
Spivey is being sued both personally and in his professional capacity. No attorneys either in private practice or with the attorney general’s office have filed an appearance with the court in this matter.
Rokita has lashed out against the ACLU of Indiana, calling the nonprofit’s lawsuit “pathetic” and calling the organization “anti-American” and “deranged.”
“It’s pathetic that the ACLU has once again chosen to champion and defend one of the biggest losers as their client,” a spokesperson from the attorney general’s office said in a statement. “Their mission these days has nothing to do with civil liberty – it’s just communism. We look forward to further draining the ACLU’s bank account by fighting and winning this case, just like we win most cases against this anti-American deranged organization.”
Ken Falk, legal director at the ACLU of Indiana, confirmed Lawmaster, the plaintiff, blogged in 2020 that in previous years, he had had his guns confiscated for two years under Indiana’s red flag law. He claimed his right to own a firearm had been restored, but he was having trouble getting cleared to buy an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, so, he blogged, he was building one.
Lawmaster’s blog appears to have been taken down after The Indiana Citizen inquired about it with the ACLU.
Also, Falk confirmed, Lawmaster had been arrested and charged in 2015 in a domestic-violence incident involving his now ex-wife. According to court documents, Lawmaster entered a plea agreement in April 2016, pleading guilty to one count of domestic battery, a class A misdemeanor, and one count of battery resulting in bodily injury, a class A misdemeanor.
Lawmaster was sentenced to probation. In July 2017, the conviction was vacated and the case dismissed, indicating Lawmaster had successfully completed the terms of his plea agreement.
Falk told The Indiana Citizen that Lawmaster was not making any threats against public officials when he posted “86.” The number, Falk said, is “merely an expression,” saying the officials should be removed from office.
The lawsuit refers to a definition of “86” in the Merriam-Webster dictionary and says the slang originated at soda counters in the 1930s to mean an item was sold out.
USA Today and a book titled “The History and Stories of the Best Bars of New York,” traced the origins of the term to a former New York City bar called Chumley’s, located at 86 Bedford St. According to one story, patrons were “eighty-sixed” out the door when they became unruly.
Even so, Comey deleted his post shortly after he put it on social media in May 2025, the Associated Press reported.
“I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence,” Comey wrote, according to the Associated Press. “I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”
The attorney general’s office viewed Lawmaster’s post as a threat against the personal safety of not only Rokita but also Beckwith and Banks. In fact, the spokesperson for the attorney general said people are currently being prosecuted in separate cases for threatening Rokita, but the spokesperson did not provide further details.
“With death threats against elected officials being very prominent across the nation and in our state, the Attorney General and his family are a top target,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “There are – right now – two people being tried in separate Marion County cases for making violent death threats against the Attorney General. This is real, and our office takes true threats extremely seriously.”
The complaint filed by the ACLU includes a transcript of the conversation that occurred – and was recorded by a door camera – when Spivey visited Lawmaster at his Monroe County home on May 1.
After identifying himself as an investigator with the attorney general’s office, Spivey started talking about Lawmaster’s “86” posts. Spivey said Lawmaster had a right to freedom of speech, including posting on social media and expressing an opinion. However, Spivey then added, “But you crossed the line with a threat like that.”
Lawmaster said very little during the roughly two-minute encounter.
Spivey told Lawmaster he hoped they could “come to an agreement that we kind of tone down the political rhetoric a little bit.” Then the investigator pointed to recent events and said, “Listen, if Comey was indicted, we could easily indict you over this today.”
Under questioning, Lawmaster indicated he understood they had come to an agreement. Spivey then responded, “Now, hopefully, we don’t have to come back.”
The ACLU argues in the lawsuit that Spivey did threaten Lawmaster with an indictment. Moreover, when the investigator said he hoped he would not have to come back, that was a warning to Lawmaster that he was going to continue being observed and was subject to prosecution if he did not alter his comments.
Falk told The Indiana Citizen that Lawmaster’s free speech rights were suppressed as a result of Spivey’s remarks. When someone “flashes a badge” and says an indictment might be coming, that would deter “any rational person” from continuing to make comments, he said.
“The implication is you could be indicted for what you’ve already done and that is clearly an attempt by a state employee to intimidate and suppress the First Amendment,” Falk said. “It was not a conversation (or) a discussion of what is and is not permissible. It was basically saying, ‘if you do it again, bad things are going to happen to you.’”
Rokita’s office scoffed at the allegation that it had suppressed Lawmaster’s right to free speech.
“One read of the Attorney General’s Facebook page shows we get thousands of goofy comments from people all over the United States,” the spokesperson said in the statement. “So if this office wanted to freeze political speech, why would this be the one comment out of the thousands of haters that we picked? It’s simply ridiculous.”
The case is Lee Lawmaster v. Kurt Spivey, 1:26-cv-923.
Dwight Adams, an editor and writer based in Indianapolis, edited this article. He is a former content editor, copy editor and digital producer at The Indianapolis Star and IndyStar.com, and worked as a planner for other newspapers, including the Louisville Courier Journal.
The Indiana Citizen is a nonpartisan, nonprofit platform dedicated to increasing the number of informed and engaged Hoosier citizens. We are operated by the Indiana Citizen Education Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) public charity. For questions about the story, contact Marilyn Odendahl at marilyn.odendahl@indianacitizen.org
