Days before the nation's 250th anniversary, a small Massachusetts coastal town sent homeowners a warning that flying American flags on their own property could land them on the wrong side of state and federal endangered species law. The notice from the Town of Newbury told Plum Island residents that flags, mylar streamers, and reflective materials might constitute harassment of protected shorebirds, and that "non-compliance may result in state or federal enforcement actions."
Three homeowners received the letter. One of them, Marc Sarkady, a 30-year resident of the island, had been organizing a grassroots effort to celebrate America's 250th birthday. He and his neighbors had already distributed roughly 50 American flags and about 100 revolutionary-style signs reading "Plum Island Honors America" across the community.
Then the letter arrived. And what it said stopped the celebration cold.
The notice, obtained by Fox News Digital, warned that the town had "become aware of the use of devices and materials intended to deter" protected shorebirds from using local beach and dune systems. It listed "mylar streamers, flags, [and] reflective materials" as examples of such devices.
The letter continued: "activities intended to deter protected shorebirds from utilizing suitable habitat may be viewed as harassment or disruption of normal feeding, nesting, or migratory behavior" and could "carry significant regulatory and financial penalties."
It closed with a blunt warning: "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."
Read plainly, the notice told homeowners that putting a flag on their own property could be treated as wildlife harassment under the Endangered Species Act. The timing, just before the Fourth of July, made the message land even harder.
Sarkady did not mince words. He told Fox News Digital his reaction was immediate.
"Are you serious? You're telling me I can't fly American flags on my property to [celebrate America 250]?"
He pointed out that Plum Island features roughly ten miles of open beach completely free of houses. The birds, in other words, have plenty of room.
"It's a nature preserve. So, to us, it's like, 'Folks, come on, be reasonable.'"
Sarkady said his effort to distribute flags and signs was never partisan. He described it as a simple act of civic pride that brought the island together.
"It's really us trying to bring the island together, everybody, by the way, not left, not right, America, American citizens, and really reaching out. That's really the spirit of what I'm trying to do here."
That spirit ran into a bureaucratic wall.
Sarkady alleged that this was not the first time state wildlife officials had pressured Plum Island residents over decorations. He told Fox News Digital that the prior year, a neighbor received a nearly identically worded letter from a Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife official after she put up ornamental banners on her beachside lawn. Sarkady said the official then called the woman directly and threatened severe penalties.
"This person actually threatened the citizen from Plum Island, who's a homeowner, with fines and potentially being arrested and put in jail."
He added: "She felt very threatened." The neighbor, he said, removed her displays out of fear.
MassWildlife flatly denied Sarkady's account. A spokesperson told Fox News Digital that "MassWildlife is not prohibiting residents from displaying American flags on their property and has not issued any violation letters or notices to these landowners, nor has it taken any action to impose or threaten penalties."
The denial and the allegation sit in direct tension. No formal citation, fine, or enforcement action against any homeowner has been confirmed. But the written notice from the town, which MassWildlife requested, speaks for itself.
Newbury Town Administrator Tracy Blais tried to walk the letter back. She told Fox News Digital the town was "not in any way attempting to interfere with the property owner's rights to use their property or to restrict their use of their property for ordinary and patriotic purposes."
Blais characterized the notice as informational, nothing more.
"The letter merely recited provisions of the law, and the Town is not asserting any threat or legal liability, merely reminding property owners that they live in a very special place which comes along with certain responsibilities."
She added: "The Town is not asserting any rights or control it does not have, and I think the Town's letter is pretty clear on that point."
Clear is one word for it. The letter explicitly warned of "significant regulatory and financial penalties" and "state or federal enforcement actions." Residents who read those words and concluded they were being threatened can hardly be blamed for taking them at face value.
Sarkady and two neighbors contacted the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization that litigates property rights and constitutional cases. PLF responded fast. On Wednesday, the foundation sent a letter to Newbury Conservation Agent Mason Ferrick raising what it called "significant concerns" about property rights and the legal basis for the town's claims.
The PLF letter invoked the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It asked the town to clarify whether it was claiming homeowners are legally prohibited from displaying flags, streamers, or reflective materials on their private property. It demanded the legal basis for applying state and federal endangered species acts to privately owned beachfront land.
Mark Miller, PLF's Director of Environment and Natural Resources Litigation, did not hold back in a public statement.
"Flying the red, white and blue on the Fourth of July is as American as apple pie. For Massachusetts local officials to claim otherwise violates both the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. As Massachusetts Founding Father John Adams famously said, 'Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.'"
Miller drove the point home in a separate comment to Fox News Digital.
"When governments send letters that look like threats, sound like threats and walk like threats, they shouldn't be surprised when people take them as threats."
PLF stated that no court has ever found a homeowner liable under the endangered species acts for displaying decorations on their private property. If that claim holds, the town's notice rests on a legal theory that has never survived judicial scrutiny.
Several questions hang over this episode. Blais said the town acted at MassWildlife's request to "spread the word" about protecting endangered species. But who at MassWildlife made that request, and when? The agency's own spokesperson denied prohibiting flag displays or threatening penalties, yet the town's letter, sent at the agency's behest, warned of exactly those consequences.
The specific shorebird species at issue is not named in the notice itself, though a piping plover, a small, federally protected bird that nests on Atlantic beaches, appears in the article's photo from the nearby Parker River National Wildlife Refuge.
No homeowner has received a formal citation or fine. But the chilling effect is real. Sarkady's neighbor removed her displays after what he described as a threatening phone call. And three homeowners received an official letter warning them that celebrating their country's birthday on their own land could trigger enforcement.
The Endangered Species Act exists to protect wildlife, and no serious person disputes the value of conservation. But laws designed to prevent habitat destruction on federal land or regulate commercial development were never meant to tell a homeowner she cannot hang a flag on the Fourth of July.
When a town government sends a letter citing federal law, warning of "significant regulatory and financial penalties," and telling residents their patriotic displays may constitute wildlife harassment, that is not a friendly reminder. It is a government notice carrying the implicit weight of enforcement. The fact that the town now says it meant no threat does not erase the plain language of its own letter.
Plum Island homeowners have ten miles of open, house-free beach on their doorstep. The birds have room. The question is whether the residents do, or whether the regulatory state has grown so expansive that flying the American flag on your own property, in the state where the Revolution began, now requires a government permission slip.
John Adams would have had something to say about that. The Pacific Legal Foundation already does.
