LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR ACTIVISTS

April 10, 2025

By Blake Kremer, Attorney at Law

 

SENTENCES FOR ACTIONS CAN BE LONG

 

Many of us who have friends or associates who have been arrested for activism are familiar with convictions that do not result in consequences that seriously impact their lives. But some of us know activists who have been jailed for months, even years. These activists who have experienced longer imprisonments have typically had prior convictions that increased their sentencing range. Still, it is not reasonable for an activist to assume that the result of peaceful activism would be a less impactful sentence. One of my greatest concerns for these people of conscience is the risk of unintended actions and unexpected consequences.

 

NEW THREATS UNDER THE 2025 POLITICAL CLIMATE

 

Under President Trump’s 2025 administration, peace activists face intensified threats of prosecution that differ significantly from prior years. These include:

1. Draconian Anti-Protest Laws: Since January 2025, more than 40 anti-protest bills have been introduced in over 20 states. These laws target peaceful protest and civil disobedience, labeling them as criminal conspiracies or "infrastructure sabotage." Activists disrupting military bases, energy sites, or government operations now face felony charges and years in prison.

2. Federal Surveillance and Criminalization: Peace groups are being surveilled more aggressively, and coordinated nonviolent actions are increasingly being framed as conspiracies under federal law. Activists face threats of being charged not only for their actions but for planning, coordinating, or simply being associated with those who take action.

3. Use of Immigration Laws: The administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act to detain and deport activists with foreign ties, even lawful permanent residents. This signals a broader willingness to weaponize immigration enforcement against peaceful dissent.

4. Campus Crackdowns: Student peace activists, particularly those advocating for Palestinian rights or nuclear disarmament, are facing suspension, expulsion, and legal threats under vague accusations of "terrorism support." Universities are under pressure to discipline or disband such groups.

5. Potential Use of the Insurrection Act: The administration has floated using the Insurrection Act to suppress domestic protests, granting the federal government vast powers to deploy military force against peace demonstrations.

These threats mean that even low-level acts of conscience now carry much higher legal risks, particularly when coupled with vague and politically motivated law enforcement.

 

UNEXPECTED ACTORS AND CONSEQUENCES

 

I saw this during the 2020 Seattle Capitol Hill protest. The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), originally Free Capitol Hill and occasionally called the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP), was a protest that I assume many reading this are familiar with. During that protest I was contacted for representation by several activists who had engaged in “de-arresting” procedures. These activists had attended a speech at the CHOP where the speaker had discussed the appropriateness of physically pulling an arrested activist from police custody during an action. The speaker allegedly described this as a legally defensible “de-arresting” procedure.

Those who attempted or practiced “de-arresting” had a strong belief and understanding that what they were doing was legally justified. The police, however, saw this as a crime. Third-degree assault is defined in our state as a Class C felony involving contact with a firefighter, law enforcement officer, or another specific public servant. A judge can sentence a person to up to five years in prison and up to $20,000 in fines for this felony. A more serious charge could result from a “de-arrest” depending on what injuries a policeman reports experiencing. De-arresting is not, in my opinion, a valid legal principle and not a legal defense.

One of the many concerns I have is that peace activists may arrive at an action and only then realize that someone standing with them subscribes to the misguided “de-arrest” theory or a similarly flawed legal belief. These strategies may not become apparent until it is too late—when that individual takes an action that exposes the entire group to heightened criminal liability. This kind of surprise can turn a planned act of nonviolence into a serious legal crisis for everyone present.

 

CONSEQUENCES OF PEOPLE BELIEVING THEY ARE EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS

 

In the wake of the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, more than 1,200 individuals were criminally charged, with hundreds convicted and sentenced to terms ranging from short probation to over a decade in federal prison. These prosecutions demonstrate that even those who believed they were acting on sincere political or constitutional principles were not shielded from serious legal consequences. While most individuals, as a result of having the sympathy of the executive office, have since received pardons or sentence commutations, the legal exposure, criminal records, and collateral consequences they faced remain highly relevant for any person considering action under a belief in moral or political justification.  Particularly for people who do not enjoy the sympathy of the executive office.  

For peace activists, the lesson is clear: the justice system does not excuse actions simply because the actor believes they are constitutionally or ethically justified. You may find yourself standing next to someone who interprets a moment of tension as a call to escalate. Their actions could trigger consequences for everyone present, regardless of intent or planning. It is critical to understand not only your own legal risks but also the legal exposure created by those around you.

 

DISCERNMENT

 

One of the best protections against these risks is the practice of thorough discernment. As I learned working with Plowshares activists, deep discussion, mutual trust, and planning can reduce surprises during actions. Activists must talk explicitly before actions about their expectations, their thresholds for escalation, and how they will respond to provocation or trauma.

In the current climate, this kind of preparation is more essential than ever.

 

WORST-CASE SCENARIOS AND GROUP DYNAMICS

 

Activists should prepare not only for legal outcomes but for emotionally charged moments. One moment of panic, one step toward a fallen friend, or one defensive gesture could be interpreted by authorities as a threat. In today’s political environment, those moments may lead to conspiracy charges, terrorism enhancements, or accomplice liability.

Do you know what the people beside you are capable of under stress? Are you sure none of them are carrying items that could be interpreted as weapons? Has this person previously been arrested for assaultive behavior?  Have you had the kind of discussions that uncover past trauma, legal vulnerabilities, or mental health issues? In today’s landscape, these conversations are no longer optional.

 

ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY AND OTHER LEGAL RISKS

 

Showing up at a protest where someone else commits an illegal act can expose you to the same criminal liability as if you committed the act yourself. Accomplice liability, rendering criminal assistance, and accessory statutes can be used by prosecutors to punish peaceful activists for the conduct of others.

In today’s environment, the application of these statutes should be considered more aggressive, and the consequences more dire. What was once treated as symbolic civil disobedience may now be framed as organized sedition.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Until now, the typical federal charges for first time prosecutions for common peaceful activism remain minor: trespass, a small fine, perhaps probation. But this is no longer a time when typical outcomes are guaranteed. In today’s climate, the legal consequences of activism may be deeply disproportionate.

People from out of the area should be prepared to travel to the jurisdiction of the charge for subsequent hearings. People who are not U.S. citizens should be prepared to lose their right to enter the U.S. entirely. Individuals with significant anxiety or mental health disabilities should participate in a support role rather than direct action.  People who have been arrested before should consult an attorney to discuss and understand potential ramifications of a new arrest before participating.

Every activist must ask not only what they are willing to risk—but also whether they know the risks created by others standing beside them. Discernment is more than planning an action; it is planning for survival.

And in 2025, that has never been more necessary.