Federal jury sends message to activists obstructing ICE transfer while lawmaker who sent them takes plea
For years, the activist Left has pushed the idea that if enough protesters flood the streets, government policy can simply be overridden by sheer force of numbers. This week in Washington state, a federal jury delivered a reminder that the rule of law still matters.
Three anti-ICE activists known as the “Spokane 3” were convicted on federal conspiracy charges after prosecutors said they helped organize and participate in an effort to stop federal officers from transporting two immigration detainees from Spokane to Tacoma in June 2025.
The defendants — Jac Archer, Justice Forral and Bajun Mavalwalla II — were among hundreds who responded to a social media call-to-action urging supporters to physically block an ICE transport bus. Federal prosecutors argued the protest crossed the line from political expression into unlawful interference with federal operations. After an eight-day trial and lengthy jury deliberations, jurors agreed.
The convictions represent one of the highest-profile victories yet for the Trump administration’s tougher approach toward anti-ICE demonstrations. Federal officials have increasingly argued that Americans have every right to protest immigration policy, but not to obstruct federal agents carrying out lawful duties. The Justice Department emphasized that distinction following the verdict, stating that free speech protections do not extend to criminal conduct designed to impede federal officers.
The case has become a flashpoint in the broader national battle over immigration enforcement. Supporters of the defendants portray them as activists standing up against what they view as unfair immigration policies. Critics see something far different: activists attempting to use mob tactics to stop federal law enforcement from doing its job.
The fallout has also exposed fractures within Spokane’s activist community.
Former Spokane City Council President Ben Stuckart, whose social media post helped mobilize demonstrators, accepted a plea agreement earlier in the case. After the verdict, Democratic state Rep. Natasha Hill publicly blasted him for not attending the proceedings.
“You started this and you couldn’t even show up to finish it,” Hill said. “So I call on you, and I call on others to do what you said you were going to do, and stand up for your community because the fight is not over with this conviction.”
Bajun Mavalwalla Sr., father of one of the convicted defendants and a congressional candidate, accused federal prosecutors of using the case as a warning shot to future protesters. “The right to protest, the right to dissent, the right to assemble — all of those things are now in question because of this case,” he said. “In other cases across the country, the juries were not tainted and the cases have been thrown out.”
That argument is unlikely to persuade supporters of stronger immigration enforcement, who view the verdict as a straightforward consequence of attempting to obstruct federal operations. To them, the issue isn’t speech. It’s conduct.
Three anti-ICE activists known as the “Spokane 3” were convicted on federal conspiracy charges after prosecutors said they helped organize and participate in an effort to stop federal officers from transporting two immigration detainees from Spokane to Tacoma in June 2025.
The defendants — Jac Archer, Justice Forral and Bajun Mavalwalla II — were among hundreds who responded to a social media call-to-action urging supporters to physically block an ICE transport bus. Federal prosecutors argued the protest crossed the line from political expression into unlawful interference with federal operations. After an eight-day trial and lengthy jury deliberations, jurors agreed.
The convictions represent one of the highest-profile victories yet for the Trump administration’s tougher approach toward anti-ICE demonstrations. Federal officials have increasingly argued that Americans have every right to protest immigration policy, but not to obstruct federal agents carrying out lawful duties. The Justice Department emphasized that distinction following the verdict, stating that free speech protections do not extend to criminal conduct designed to impede federal officers.
The case has become a flashpoint in the broader national battle over immigration enforcement. Supporters of the defendants portray them as activists standing up against what they view as unfair immigration policies. Critics see something far different: activists attempting to use mob tactics to stop federal law enforcement from doing its job.
The fallout has also exposed fractures within Spokane’s activist community.
Former Spokane City Council President Ben Stuckart, whose social media post helped mobilize demonstrators, accepted a plea agreement earlier in the case. After the verdict, Democratic state Rep. Natasha Hill publicly blasted him for not attending the proceedings.
“You started this and you couldn’t even show up to finish it,” Hill said. “So I call on you, and I call on others to do what you said you were going to do, and stand up for your community because the fight is not over with this conviction.”
Bajun Mavalwalla Sr., father of one of the convicted defendants and a congressional candidate, accused federal prosecutors of using the case as a warning shot to future protesters. “The right to protest, the right to dissent, the right to assemble — all of those things are now in question because of this case,” he said. “In other cases across the country, the juries were not tainted and the cases have been thrown out.”
That argument is unlikely to persuade supporters of stronger immigration enforcement, who view the verdict as a straightforward consequence of attempting to obstruct federal operations. To them, the issue isn’t speech. It’s conduct.
70-79, M
