A federal appeals court has overturned the conviction of conservative influencer Douglass Mackey, ruling that his 2016 election memes—mocking Democrats with fake voting instructions—did not constitute criminal conspiracy under U.S. law.
At a Glance
- A federal court overturned Douglass Mackey’s conviction over alleged voter suppression memes.
- The court found insufficient evidence of any agreement to commit a criminal conspiracy.
- Mackey had been sentenced to seven months in prison for suggesting Democrats vote via text.
- Nearly 5,000 people texted the number, but 98% got error messages and didn’t vote that way.
- The decision marks a major rebuke to the DOJ’s handling of politically charged speech cases.
Meme Trial Collapses on Appeal
Douglass Mackey, who operated online under the pseudonym “Ricky Vaughn,” was charged for memes posted in 2016 that encouraged Hillary Clinton supporters to “vote by text.” Prosecutors argued this was part of a coordinated conspiracy to suppress votes—a claim the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has now emphatically rejected.
Writing for the panel, Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston concluded that “the mere fact that he posted the memes… is not enough… to prove a violation of the conspiracy law.” The court emphasized that the government failed to demonstrate Mackey knowingly joined a plot with others to deceive voters, as confirmed in Reason’s legal breakdown.
Watch a report: Douglass Mackey Freed After Appeal Court Tosses Meme Conviction
A Legal Win for Free Speech
The appeals court ruling ordered a full acquittal. Mackey, who had already begun serving his sentence, celebrated the news on social media: “Praise God. God is good. Now we sue.” His legal victory is already being hailed as a pivotal moment in the legal battle over online speech and political expression.
Despite prosecutors citing nearly 5,000 text responses to the fake number, there was no evidence any votes were lost or that Mackey collaborated with others. The court also noted that nearly all who texted received immediate responses indicating the number was invalid.
DOJ Under Fire for Overreach
The ruling is a major blow to the Department of Justice’s attempts to expand conspiracy statutes into the digital sphere. Critics argue that Mackey’s prosecution was politically motivated and threatened to criminalize satire, memes, and dissenting online commentary.
Mackey’s case became a lightning rod for First Amendment defenders who warned that no speech—especially political parody—should face jail time without clear and present harm. As the appellate court affirmed, speech alone—without a provable agreement to commit crime—is constitutionally protected.