Is responding to a Facebook post announcing a protest a federal conspiracy?
The federal government argues that for nine Spokanites who in June protested outside the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) downtown office to stop two young immigrants from being deported, it was. Those protesters, who were arrested one month after the protest, were among hundreds of Spokanites who had responded to a Facebook call from one of the immigrant’s guardians, the government says, they’d conspired to “Impede or Injure Officers.”
Though six of the protesters arrested on federal charges took plea deals last year, the remaining three are asking a federal judge to dismiss the case entirely.
On March 2, 2026, defendant Jac Archer, Co-Executive Director of Spokane Community Against Racism (SCAR), and their lawyers first submitted the motion. Defendants Justice Forral and Bajun Mavalwalla II joined Archer’s motion on March 3 and March 16, respectively. A hearing is set for next week.
Archer’s motion claims the federal government’s indictment violated their First Amendment rights by “treating a constitutionally protected protest as a conspiracy and characterizing nonviolent civil disobedience as ‘force, intimidation, or threat.’”
The motion to dismiss the charges comes after a judge ruled in late January that one of the two immigrants, Joswar Torres, was illegally detained on June 11 in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. He has since been released from ICE custody. The other young man, Cesar Alexander Alvarez, was deported over the summer after describing inhumane conditions at the ICE detention center in Tacoma.
The initial Facebook call to protest was made by the Alvarez’ guardian, former City Council President Ben Stuckart. The federal indictment said that post and a later post by Archer urging people to protest constituted proof of a conspiracy between the defendants, stating that protesters “arrived in response to the call.”
To convict someone with conspiracy to impede or injure officers, the federal government must prove a three-pronged case:
- that an actual conspiracy between two or more people existed
- that Archer and other defendants chose to join the conspiracy
- that they then “conspired to prevent by force, intimidation or threat, an officer of the United States from discharging her [or his] duties,” the motion to dismiss states.
Archer’s motion argues that Facebook posts alone should not be considered evidence of a conspiracy: the demonstrators had not agreed on tactics, declared any intent to use force against federal officers or collaborated with Stuckart, Archer and other protesters. And even if Facebook posts did count as a conspiracy, none of the unlawful acts the federal government claim Archer, Forral and Malvalwalla II committed amounted to “force, intimidation, or threat,” under federal law, the motion continues, because the alleged crimes were directed at a bus, not human beings.
“The tactics in the calls to action are time-worn and protected methods of civil disobedience,” the motion reads. “Acts of civil disobedience are intended to get the government’s attention and perhaps be a nuisance. But the act of lying, sitting, or standing in front of a government building does not, by any stretch of the imagination, meet the definitions of force, threat or intimidation.”
Archer’s lawyer cited news articles and a statement on LinkedIn from the acting US attorney Richard Barker to outline a case of politicized prosecution intended to discourage constitutionally protected speech.
“The present Indictment thus fits squarely into the Government’s broad and concerted effort to stamp out all forms of opposition to its actions through vindictive and baseless prosecutions, with no regard for First Amendment rights,” the motion reads.
Barker later told Aaron Glantz for PBS and The Guardian he’d resigned over the case the government had been building against the protesters.
“I didn’t feel in this case that a conspiracy charge that would carry a six-year term of incarceration was true to who I was or wanted to be as a federal prosecutor,” he told Glantz.
In their response to the motion, then-Deputy US Attorney General Todd Blanche and Assistant US Attorneys for the Eastern District of Washington Lisa Cartier-Giroux and Rebecca Perez argued that the actions of the Spokane 9 “went beyond the expression of a constitutional right.” The government’s attorneys also said the protesters had adequate alternative ways to protest that did not prevent federal officers from performing their duties and alleged that Archer knew the protesters could be arrested for their actions. (Blanche has since been named Acting US Attorney after President Donald Trump fired Pam Bondi.)
“Defendant Archer chose to be a leader in not just expressing discontent with the actions of government but going far beyond that protected right to trapping officers, along with civilian employees and detainees, inside a building for hours in an effort to force the release of the detainees,” the state's response reads. They also point to local charges filed against Forral by the Spokane County Sheriff, which are currently working their way through the local court system.
The argument in the response cites past rulings to support it, including case law defining when the government is allowed to regulate speech, like when protesters blocked traffic or created “unwelcome noise.” They also compared the case of the Spokane 9 to United States v. Payne, where gunmen on Clive Bundy’s Bunkerville ranch allegedly “took sniper positions behind concrete barriers and aimed their assault rifles at the officers.”
In that case, the federal government claimed that the gunmen’s actions were a conspiracy to prevent any future law enforcement actions against Bundy or his co-conspirators. (The case was declared a mistrial after a district court judge found federal prosecutors willfully failed to disclose information and was later dismissed with prejudice.)
Blanche, Cartier-Giroux and Perez called the claims from an unnamed “politically-ambitious and power-hungry former interim United States Attorney” (apparently Barker) insinuating that the prosecution is politically motivated “irrelevant.”
In a response to the federal government’s response, Archer’s attorneys pushed back against the comparison to US v Payne, stating “the present case could not be further from the facts in Payne. … While prior prosecutions under this statute have all involved true threats of bodily harm or actual physical force employed against federal officers, none of this is even alleged in the present conspiracy charge.”
Some crimes Archer and the other members of the Spokane 9 were accused of — like vandalism, trespassing or failure to disperse — may have been illegal. But those smaller crimes are not what they’re charged with. And their actions, Archer’s response argues, do not meet the standard for conspiracy.
“If they did virtually all activities protesting federal actions could be considered federal felonies. Picketing, sit-ins, distributing pamphlets, loud speeches and harsh criticism can all interfere with an employee’s productivity,” the second response reads. “But coercion, pressure and obstruction do not equate to physical force, nor do they lose First Amendment protections.”
Forral’s attorney Andrea George has filed an additional motion, in the event Archer’s motion fails, to strike two of the three counts of conspiracy they’re being charged with. Essentially, this motion argues that the indictment lacks necessary specificity in who the exact federal officers the defendants are accused of injuring or impeding and whether or not those officers count as officers at all, under the hundred-year-old code they were indicted under. It also doesn’t specify what exactly the defendants did that rises to the level of federal conspiracy.
Forral’s motion is also supported by Mavalwalla II and Archer, which means that, in the case the motion to dismiss fails but the motion to strike passes, it would strike the charges for the entire trio.
A response from Blanche, Cartier-Giroux and Perez to Forral’s motion to strike the counts says they provided the defense with an FBI report, in addition to the indictment, that named 14 federal employees who had been at the facility that day, as well as ample security footage as evidence of their claims Forral impeded officers. The response stated the federal government had provided a “mountain of specific, detailed evidence,” in support of their claims.
A hearing on Archer’s motion to dismiss is scheduled for April 14, and if that fails, a hearing for Forral’s motion would immediately follow.
