Federal prosecutors will try to make the case this week that three activists who protested immigration enforcement last summer crossed the line from political dissent into criminal conspiracy — a legal theory that prompted the top federal prosecutor in Eastern Washington to resign rather than sign off on the charges.
The trial is likely to be a closely watched test of the Trump administration’s push to prioritize immigration protest cases and the strategy of using conspiracy charges to prosecute demonstrators not accused of specific violent acts.
“Usually if a protest gets out of hand and people are hurt or property is hurt, you see charges based on that,” said Mary Fan, a former federal prosecutor and a University of Washington law professor. “They’re not going after people based on specific harm done. They’re stretching conspiracy charges to target protesters and people who organize protests.”
Bajun Mavalwalla II, Justice Forral and Jac Archer will stand trial starting Monday on charges of conspiracy to impede or injure federal officers stemming from a June 11, 2025, protest in Spokane, Wash. Another six were charged, but took plea deals to avoid trial.
The demonstrators tried to stop Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from transporting two Venezuelan immigrants — who were in the country legally at the time but had outstanding immigration-related warrants — to the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, Wash.
Protesters linked arms and created makeshift barriers to block driveways and entrances to the federal building. Prosecutors said a van meant to transport the immigrants had its windows spray-painted over and its tires deflated. Local police responded with smoke grenades and pepper balls, arresting more than 30 people, most on misdemeanor charges typically associated with protests, including trespassing and failure to disperse.
The Spokane protest coincided with a wave of protests responding to the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown and a memo from the Department of Justice ordering U.S. attorneys to prioritize immigration protest cases.
In the days after the demonstration, Richard Barker, then the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Washington, directed prosecutors to examine whether the Spokane demonstrators could face charges of conspiracy to impede or injure federal officers. But rather than pursue charges, he resigned.
“We’re used to seeing people arrested because they refused to leave an area or they are engaging in civil disobedience,” Mr. Barker said Friday. “But when have we used the federal government to police that? That to me is a distinction with a difference.”
His successor, Stephanie Van Marter, signed the indictments returned by a federal grand jury, making the Spokane protest one of several recent cases in which federal prosecutors have used conspiracy charges against anti-ICE demonstrators. In Minnesota earlier this year, prosecutors used conspiracy and civil rights statutes to charge dozens of people involved in a protest inside a St. Paul church, arguing the group coordinated its actions to interfere with religious worship.
Mr. Mavalwalla, Mr. Forral and Mr. Archer have all said they refused to plead to lesser charges because they believe their First Amendment rights were violated. They are accused of attempting to block federal officers from leaving and pushing and shoving in the scrum that followed, not the most serious violence prosecutors say occurred at the Spokane event. In charging documents, for example, prosecutors said that Mr. Archer used sandbags and other obstacles to block a driveway and that he used social media to ask others to “risk arrest to block the exits to ICE.”
Each man faces up to six years in prison if convicted.
Prosecutors could not be reached for comment Friday, but in charging documents and public statements, they have said that the nine people charged in the protest intended to prevent law enforcement officials from during their jobs and were willing to use violence. One of the original defendants, who has reached a plea deal, brought a box cutter to the demonstration to slash van tires. Another picked up an incendiary device fired into the crowd by Spokane Police and threw it back at law enforcement. And another man who was charged but reached a plea agreement was accused of striking a federal officer from behind.
In plea agreements, U.S. attorneys noted that they could have charged protesters with other felonies, such as damaging federal property, but did not.
Ms. Fan said the case was significant because prosecutors were “going after people who rally others to protest under the banner of conspiracy.” That, she said, “is remarkable in a nation that values the First Amendment and where the law recognizes concerns about chilling political speech.”
In this case, prosecutors will attempt to win a jury conviction in a county that went for Mr. Trump in 2024 and is far more conservative than other parts of Washington west of the Cascade Mountains.
“I’m hopeful that our neighbors see this for what it is, an attempt to silence dissent,” said the Rev. Emily Kuenker, a pastor with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America who has been active in Spokane civil rights work. “And if they don’t, we’ll just keep fighting.”
Anna Griffin is the Pacific Northwest bureau chief for The Times, leading coverage of Washington, Idaho, Alaska, Montana and Oregon.
The post Conspiracy Trial Will Test Trump’s Aggressive Tactics Against Protesters appeared first on New York Times.
