Federal prosecutors invoked a rarely used conspiracy statute to bring charges against 15 Minnesotans Tuesday for actions taken throughout the immigration enforcement surge in the state.
In the 94-page indictment, and throughout a press release, the Justice Department claims members of the activist group Direct Action Minnesota conspired to survey, harass and physically confront federal immigration agents to impede the enforcement of immigration law.
While prosecutors frame the indictments as dismantling a dangerous network targeting federal agents, legal experts view the use of a sweeping conspiracy statute as an aggressive escalation and a threat to protected speech.
“We certainly want to prosecute people who are actively involved in a plot against the United States government to interfere with federal government functions,” University of Minnesota law professor Richard Painter said. “But there’s also such a thing as peaceful protest, people have the right to assemble outside a federal building.”
Painter, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer during the George W. Bush administration, said those who engage in illegal conduct while protesting should be charged, but to claim a widespread conspiracy is a threat to First Amendment rights.
“This indictment appears to be going way overboard, using a sledgehammer to address what might have been some infractions, some violations of the law by some individuals,” Painter said, noting the conspiracy charge carries up to six years in prison. “It’s completely disproportionate.”
Federal prosecutors will aim to prove what Minnesota U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen said Tuesday: that the defendants’ actions crossed the line from protected speech into a coordinated, illegal conspiracy to obstruct federal operations.
Utilizing evidence of blockades, damage to government vehicles and an apparent attempt to ram an agent’s car, the Justice Department claims the group promotes a violent, “militant” approach over peaceful protests.
The underlying charge brought against all 15 defendants is “conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer.” The charge is defined as two or more people conspiring to “prevent, by force, intimidation or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof.”
The statute is well over a century old, and is historically reserved for coordinated efforts to violently overthrow federal authority or assault government officials, such as the prosecutions of those involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots.
“These indictments have followed up on that narrative, that somehow this is comparable to Jan. 6,” Painter said. “I don’t see how this statute could be used, and it’s certainly not analogous to Jan. 6.”
Josh Esmay, deputy director of the Legal Rights Center, said the indictment leans heavily on social media chatter and coordination, but struggles to show actual force or threats against officers.
“The statute says that it’s a high bar — it’s force, intimidation or threat,” he said. “It’s really hard for me to come up with anything they were talking about doing that would be actually using force against an officer … setting up a blockade is not using force.”
You can read the full article at the Courthouse News Service.