Trantifa city councilor Lucy Lauser seeks dismissal of indecent exposure charges as defense attorney argues males are not prosecuted for going topless

A defense attorney for a Washington state lawmaker has filed a motion to dismiss a case involving indecent exposure charges against his client, transgender Stevenson city councilor Lucy Lauser. Lauser, who is actively involved with Antifa networks, is accused of unlawfully exposing his "breasts" during an anti-Trump protest in July. Lauser is a man who identifies as a woman.

Skamania District Court Judge Ronald H. Reynier presided over oral arguments on Monday concerning the Knapstad motion to dismiss, which mandates that the prosecution and defense agree on all facts of the case in order for it to be prosecuted.

"My client was protesting the current presidential administration's Executive Order, which basically put in place that under federal law that there are two genders, and that...every person is the gender that they were assigned at birth," defense attorney Brian Pruett told the judge, according to Upliftlocal. "That's highly offensive to my client, and as a result, on the Fourth of July...[she] chose to protest in a way that clearly addresses that issue."

Lauser's legal troubles stem from a July 4, 2025, protest outside the Skamania County Courthouse in downtown Stevenson, a small community of about 1,500 residents. During the demonstration, Lauser exposed his breasts by removing his shirt. He had painted one arm red, taped his mouth and nipples in black, and inscribed "woman, life, freedom" across his chest. The topless display was intended to challenge President Donald Trump's executive order restricting sex change procedures for minors and barring men from competing on women's sports teams, which Lauser has publicly decried as dehumanizing. 

Skamania County deputy prosecuting attorney Elise Howard argued to the judge that the councilor's conduct was against the law, and referred to Lauser with female pronouns during the proceedings.

"Because Ms. Lauser's protest was non-verbal and the message was unlikely to be understood by those who viewed her conduct...it can be analyzed as mere conduct and not protected speech and is thus easily found to be obscene," Howard wrote in a court filing, asking the judge to "find that there is at least a possibility that a reasonable juror" could make the same judgment.

"The law," she added, "is ambiguous, and when there is an ambiguity such as that, it's our duty to prosecute and bring that question before the court."

Shortly after his arrest, Lauser told reporters, "I couldn't think of a better method of protesting the president calling me a man than taking off my shirt and getting arrested for it."

He was handcuffed by Skamania County Sheriff's deputies after refusing a deputy's request to cover up, citing potential "affront or alarm" to passerby. Released on $500 bail the same day, Lauser faces up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine if convicted under Washington's indecent exposure statute, which prohibits "any open and obscene exposure" likely to offend.

This wasn't Lauser's first such demonstration. On March 31—International Transgender Day of Visibility—he staged a similar topless protest in the same location, prompting a referral to prosecutors but no immediate arrest. That incident sparked a recall petition, with critics arguing it reflected poor judgment from an elected official. A second recall effort launched in August, following the July arrest, accuses Lauser of "public indecency" and has garnered signatures from residents who say the protests exposed children to inappropriate content.

Defense attorney Pruett argued that Lauser's conduct did not amount to indecent exposure because he had his nipples covered in black. "It's the amount of exposure that a person would have if they were wearing a bikini," he told Judge Reyneir, arguing that "if there was a person in town who was male on the Fourth of July and was walking down the street without a shirt on, we would not have a prosecution for obscenity or any indecent exposure."

"Conduct, if it's topless in nature, is speech, unless there's some sort of sexualized behavior," said Pruett. Lauser was "standing there protesting, not trying to incite arousal in any way, shape or form," he said, adding that the councilor protested in "an appropriate manner."

Judge Reynier said the case was "complicated" and would make a ruling on a later date once reviewing the full material. If the case is not dismissed, the next phase would be a jury trial.